THE  LIBRARY 
OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


Cassius  M.  Clay,  Jr. 
1846-1913 


[Aetat  45] 

From  a  Photograph  taken  while  President  of  the 
Constitutional  Convention 


__  The 

;  Speeches,   Addresses 


AND 


Writings 


OF 


, 

Cassius  M.  Clay,  Jr, 


Including   A    Biographical   Sketch 

BY 

James    K.    Patterson 

PRESIDENT     EMERITUS,     STATE     UNIVERSITY    OF     KENTUCKY 


The  Winthrop  Press,   New  York 

M  C  V  X  I  V 


tJewUorlc 


C5-75 


CONTENTS. 


PAG  I 


Biographical  Memoir,  by  Pres.  James  K.  Patterson   ..........        9 

Commencement  Speech  at  Yale,  1866  ......................      21 

The  Fallacy  of  Usury  Laws:    A  Speech  on  the  Conventional 

Interest  Law  ......................................      27 

The  Electoral  Bill  Agitation  .............................      45 

EXTRACTS    FROM    RAILROAD    ARTICLES. 
«2  I-     On   Public  Aid  of  Local  Companies  ..................      51 

LU 

II.     On  Limiting  Railroads  to  Railroad  Business  ..........      53 

or 

FROM   THE   RECORD   OF  THE   CONSTITU- 
TIONAL  CONVENTION. 

CM  I.     Speech,  Accepting  Presidency  of  the  Convention  ........      55 

(Q  II.     Speech  on  the  Revision  Clause  ......................      57 

s> 

III.     On   Railroad   Commissioners  .............  60 


8 

Speech  Before  the  Democratic  State  Convention,   1895,  When 

s-1  Defeated  for  the  Nomination  for  Governor 65 

.«j 

fj          The  Louisville  Post's  Summary  of  a  Speech  Before  Commercial 

Convention   69 

_j 

In  Eulogy  of  Hon.  Win.  Goebel 73 

Speech  on  the  Tariff,  at  Louisville,  Nov.  3,  1894 77 

Speech  in  Favor  of  Sound  Money,  1896;  a  Reply  to  Sen.  Stone 

of    Missouri 93 

Cause  of  the  Split  in  the  Democratic  Party,  1902 105 

[  5  1 


PAGE 

Why  Conservative  Democrats  Should  Vote  for  Taft 109 

In  Answer  to  Judge  Lindsay 117 

The  Tobacco  Question 125 

Same,  In  Answer  to  Judge  O'Rear 139 

The  Taxation   Amendment 145 

The  Initiative,  Referendum  and  Recall 149 

Same,  Further  Discussed 157 

The  Philosophy  of  Life :  a  Fragment 163 

Nature  of  the  Allegiance  That   a   Man   Owes   His   Party   to 

Support  its  Nominees 175 


BIOGRAPHICAL 
MEMOIR 


BIOGRAPHICAL    MEMOIR. 

The  common  ancestor  of  the  historic  Clays  of  Kentucky 
is  believed  to  have  been  John  Clay,  a  native  of  England, 
who  came  to  Virginia  as  a  Grenadier  of  the  British  Army  dur- 
ing Bacon's  Rebellion.  From  him  it  is  said  Green  Clay, 
pioneer,  soldier  and  statesman,  was  descended,  who  was  born 
in  Powhatan  County,  Virginia,  August  I4th,  1757,  and  who 
emigrated  to  Kentucky  when  about  twenty  years  of  age.  He 
was  well  educated,  a  good  mathematician  and  a  surveyor. 
The  large  bodies  of  Blue  Grass  land  which  he  acquired  laid 
the  foundation  of  the  ample  estate  which  he  left  behind  him. 
Kentucky,  which  was  then  a  part  of  Virginia,  elected  him  its 
Representative  in  the  Virginia  Legislature  and  afterward 
chose  him  its  delegate  to  ratify  the  Federal  Constitution. 
He  afterward,  when  Kentucky  became  a  State,  was  elected  a 
member  of  the  Convention  which  formed  the  Constitution  of 
1799.  Thereafter  he  served  in  the  Legislature  several  suc- 
cessive terms,  during  one  of  which  he  was  elected  Speaker. 

He  enlisted  as  a  volunteer  in  the  war  of  1812,  rose  to 
the  rank  of  Brigadier  General,  and  was  placed  by  Governor 
Shelby  in  command  of  3,000  Kentucky  troops  sent  to  raise 
the  siege  of  Fort  Meigs,  a  task  which  he  skillfully  and  gal- 
lantly accomplished.  After  the  close  of  the  war  he  retired 
to  his  princely  estate  in  Madison  County,  where  he  died  on 
October  31,  1828,  in  the  seventy-second  year  of  his  age. 
To  General  Green  Clay  were  born  seven  children,  three  sons 
and  four  daughters,  of  whom  Brutus  J.  Clay,  the  father  of 
the  subject  of  this  sketch,  born  in  1808,  was  the  second  son. 
Another  son  was  Cassius  M.  Clay,  soldier,  diplomat  and 
writer,  who  took  a  prominent  part  in  the  Anti-Slavery  Con- 
troversy which  ended  in  the  Civil  War.  Brutus  J.  Clay  was 

[  9  ] 


educated  at  Centre  College,  settled  in  Bourbon  County  as 
a  farmer,  and  was  for  many  years  one  of  the  most  successful 
stock-breeders  in  Kentucky.  In  1 840  he  was  elected  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Legislature,  in  1853,  President  of  the  State  Ag- 
ricultural Association,  and  in  1862,  Member  of  Congress. 
He  died  in  October,  1878,  leaving  by  his  first  wife  four  chil- 
dren and  by  his  second,  Cassius  M.  Clay,  Jr.,  who  was  born 
March  26,  1846,  at  Auvergne,  Bourbon  County,  in  the 
house  in  which  he  lived  and  died. 

Mr.  Clay  was  prepared  for  college  by  B.  B.  Sayre,  of 
Frankfort,  one  of  the  ablest  and  most  successful  teachers  in 
Kentucky.  He  entered  the  Junior  class  of  Yale  College  in 
1864,  graduating  in  1866  fifth  in  his  class.  He  was  a  fine 
classical  scholar,  well  versed  in  mathematics  and  more  than 
ordinarily  proficient  in  the  natural  science  of  the  day.  He 
was  an  indefatigable  reader,  an  independent  thinker,  a  pro- 
found student  of  History,  Economics  and  Sociology,  and 
flung  himself  eagerly  into  the  controversial  literature  which 
rapidly  grew  up  after  the  publication  of  Darwin's  "Origin 
of  Species."  He  was  thoroughly  versed  in  the  logic  and 
political  economy  of  John  Stuart  Mill,  and  became  an  enthu- 
siastic adherent  of  the  philosophical  system  of  Herbert  Spen- 
cer, based  upon  a  modified  Darwinian  theory  of  Evolution. 
He  had  learned  thoroughly  the  great  lesson  which  he  taught 
by  precept  and  example,  viz. :  that  the  end  of  education  is  to 
teach  man  to  think,  to  think  clearly,  to  think  quickly  and  to 
think  accurately. 

After  graduation  Mr.  Clay  settled  on  his  ancestral  es- 
tate and  applied  himself  to  agriculture.  But  such  a  man 
could  not  long  remain  in  seclusion.  In  1871  he  was  elected 
to  the  Legislature,  and  at  the  end  of  his  term  was  elected 
for  a  second  term.  From  1885  to  1889  he  was  a  member 
of  the  State  Senate,  and  in  1890  he  was  chosen  delegate 
from  Bourbon  County  to  the  Constitutional  Convention.  In 
1891  he  became  a  candidate  for  the  Democratic  nomination 
for  Governor,  but  was  defeated  by  the  Railroad  Interest, 

[  10  ] 


and  was  again  defeated  for  the  nomination  in  1895.  This 
was  his  last  appearance  as  a  candidate  for  political  office. 

In  politics  Mr.  Clay  was  a  Democrat  of  the  Cleveland 
type,  a  firm  believer  in  and  an  able  advocate  of  the  system  of 
"checks  and  balances"  provided  for  under  the  Constitution 
against  the  irresponsible  rule  of  a  majority.  He  was  a  con- 
stant advocate  of  a  "Tariff  for  Revenue  only,"  and  of  a 
sound  fiscal  policy,  adhering  to  a  gold  basis.  He  held  in  just 
contempt  the  heresy  of  a  double  standard  and  treated  with 
scorn  the  craze  of  "16  to  i."  He  held  that  the  great  dan- 
ger of  the  future  would  be  Communism  and  Socialism,  and 
hence  opposed  all  insidious  efforts  to  break  down  the  bar- 
riers which  protect  life  and  property  through  the  gradual 
extension  of  Government  monopoly  in  the  field  of  govern- 
mental domain. 

One  of  the  most  conspicuous  features  of  his  character  was 
his  utter  impartiality.  This  perhaps  grew  out  of  his  strong 
sense  of  justice,  his  clear  intuition  of  truth  and  his  adherence 
to  principle.  No  one  ever  suspected  him  of  selfish  or  nar- 
row motives.  He  was  charitable  in  his  judgment  of  others, 
conservative,  even-tempered  and  controlled  by  high  ideals 
of  life  and  of  duty.  He  was  simple  in  his  tastes  and  wants, 
courageously  cheerful  in  sorrow,  reserved  in  business  and 
private  affairs,  yet  capable  of  strong  and  deep  affection, 
standing  steadfastly  by  his  friends.  During  the  later  years 
of  his  life  his  health  was  precarious  and  required  close  atten- 
tion, but  even  thus,  no  duty  was  neglected  and  no  obligation 
left  unfulfilled.  He  was  closely  identified  with  the  various 
agricultural  and  business  enterprises  of  his  native  county. 
Only  a  few  days  before  his  death,  though  weak  and  just  out 
of  the  hospital,  he  attended  a  meeting  in  Paris  of  an  impor- 
tant association  of  which  he  was  a  member.  His  death 
occurred  after  a  brief  illness,  November  27,  1913. 

Mr.  Clay  was  thrice  married.  ( I )  to  Miss  Sue  E.  Clay, 
who  bore  him  two  sons  and  two  daughters.  The  sons, 
Junius  B.  and  Samuel  Henry,  predeceased  their  father,  the 

C  11  ] 


former  dying  at  the  age  of  33  and  the  latter  at  the  age  of  22. 
Of  the  two  daughters,  Anne  L.  is  the  wife  of  W.  Rodes 
Shackelford,  of  Richmond,  and  Sue  E.  the  wife  of  Dr.  Cyril 
Goodman,  of  Cairo,  Egypt,  where  he  has  been  in  the  service 
of  the  British  Government  for  many  years.  (2)  After  the 
death  of  his  first  wife,  June  6,  1880,  Mr.  Clay  married 
October,  1882,  Miss  Pattie  F.  Lyman,  who  survived  her 
marriage  a  little  over  a  year,  leaving  a  daughter,  who  died 
in  infancy.  (3)  In  December,  1888,  Mr.  Clay  married 
Miss  Mary  Blythe  Harris,  of  Madison  County,  who,  with 
two  sons,  Cassius  M.  and  John  H.,  survive  him. 

In  the  Legislature,  as  a  member  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives and  as  a  member  of  the  Senate,  he  made  his  pres- 
ence felt  in  no  small  degree.  In  every  important  measure 
which  came  before  either  body  members  were  ere  long  able 
to  anticipate  on  what  side  Mr.  Clay  would  stand.  His  ex- 
tended reading  and  his  profound  knowledge  of  political 
philosophy  gave  him  an  easy  mastery  of  principles,  and  his 
wide  range  of  historical  knowledge  supplied  him  with  abun- 
dant illustration.  The  writer,  though  never  a  member  of 
either  House  of  the  General  Assembly,  has  been  for  more 
than  forty  years  more  or  less  familiar  with  the  personnel  and 
calibre  of  both  Senators  and  Representatives  in  successive 
Legislatures.  During  this  period  he  has  not  known  a  mem- 
ber of  either  House  the  superior  of  Mr.  Clay  in  a  knowledge 
of  parliamentary  law,  the  rights  and  duties  of  citizenship, 
and  the  means  by  which  these  rights  and  duties  may  legiti- 
mately be  maintained.  He  was  familiar  with  the  aggres- 
sive appearance  of  Socialism,  Collectivism,  Opportunism  in 
France  and  Germany,  in  England  and  America.  To  com- 
bat these  and  hold  them  in  check  he  held  would  in  the  near 
future  be  the  chief  concern  and  highest  duty  of  all  good  citi- 
zens. He  had  no  panacea  for  all  political  ills.  He  trusted 
to  the  growth  of  intelligence,  the  diffusion  of  learning  and 
to  the  development  of  a  sound  political  morality  to  supply 
the  proper  remedy  in  dealing  with  all  questions  of  govern- 

[  12  ] 


CLEMENT    C.    CLAY,   JR. 
United  States  Senator,  1853-61 


ment  and  economic  legislation  as  they  arose.  Saturated  with 
the  best  thought  of  the  greatest  political  economists,  he  fol- 
lowed none  of  them  slavishly,  but  appropriated  and  applied 
what  was  best  in  each  to  the  upbuilding  and  maintenance  of 
the  political  and  social  fabric  inherited  from  the  founders  of 
the  Republic.  In  debate  he  was  fair  and  courteous  to  an 
opponent,  conceding  all  that  might  with  propriety  be  yielded, 
but  seizing  the  salient  facts  and  driving  them  home  with 
resistless  logic.  He  invoked  no  adventitious  trappings  of 
oratory.  He  told  a  plain,  straightforward  tale,  but  when  he 
sat  down  friends  and  opponents  alike  felt  that  his  argument 
was  the  work  of  a  thinker,  fearlessly  and  cogently  and  con- 
vincingly spoken.  In  his  public  life,  whether  as  a  candi- 
date or  lawmaker,  his  most  noticeable  asset  was  the  convic- 
tion which  the  public  had  of  his  absolute  candor,  veracity 
and  integrity  and  his  scorn  of  meanness,  prevarication  and 
duplicity.  Whether  for  you  or  against  you,  there  he  stood 
in  the  plenitude  and  panoply  of  a  great  man  "to  give  the 
world  assurance  of  a  man." 

When  the  Constitutional  Convention,  to  which  Mr.  Clay 
was  a  delegate,  assembled  in  1890,  he  was  elected  its  Presi- 
dent. His  great  ability,  his  fine  scholarship,  his  philosophic 
culture,  his  knowledge  of  law  and  his  knowledge  of  men 
made  his  selection  for  that  distinguished  honor,  when  his 
candidacy  became  known,  a  foregone  conclusion.  His  knowl- 
edge of  legislative  procedure  and  the  fairness  of  his  rulings, 
the  impartiality  shown  in  the  composition  and  morale  of  his 
Committees,  assured  adequacy  of  treatment  and  due  consid- 
eration of  all  the  business  which  came  before  them.  Ample 
opportunity  was  given  for  full  and  fair  discussion  of  all  meas- 
ures reported  to  the  Convention  through  its  Committees, 
while  dilatory  procedure  was  held  in  check.  Great  interests 
were  involved.  Educational,  industrial,  religious,  moral,  the 
reciprocal  rights  and  duties  of  individuals  and  of  corpora- 
tions, of  capital  and  of  labor.  In  all  these  a  steady  hand  and 
a  level  head  were  required.  And  when  the  convention  ad- 

[   13  ] 


journed,  the  conviction  prevailed  that  no  speaker  had  ever 
presided  over  a  deliberative  body  in  America  with  more 
ability,  integrity  and  efficiency  than  had  Mr.  Clay  over  the 
Constitutional  Convention  of  1890-91. 

In  January,  1902,  Mr.  Clay  was  appointed  a  member 
of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  the  State  University,  in  which 
capacity  he  served  until  June,  1913,  when  he  offered  his 
resignation.  During  his  period  of  service  his  broad  and 
liberal  education  and  his  intimate  knowledge  of  the  edu- 
cational necessities  of  the  State  were  of  incalculable  value 
to  the  Institution.  His  high  character  throughout  the  Com- 
monwealth, his  well-known  integrity  and  his  knowledge  of 
what  a  University  should  be,  gave  the  public  confidence  in 
its  upbuilding  and  usefulness.  His  constant  effort  was  to 
promote  economy  and  efficiency  of  administration  and  high 
standards  of  scholarship  and  of  character.  He  considered 
it  important  to  make  scholars,  but  far  more  important  to 
make  men. 

In  all  the  relations  of  public  and  private  life  Mr.  Clay 
impressed  those  with  whom  he  came  in  contact  as  a  man 
able,  upright,  sincere  and  honorable,  despising  pretence  and 
sham.  He  was  just  and  considerate  to  all,  with  a  large  re- 
serve of  force  behind  all  he  did  and  said.  His  constant  aim 
was  to  discover  fundamental  principles  and  to  build  thereon. 

Mr.  Clay  was  still  in  the  prime  of  manhood  and  intel- 
lectual vigor  when  he  died.  His  mind  was  clear  and  strong, 
his  mental  activities  unimpaired,  his  conception  of  men  and 
things  clarified  by  experience.  A  well-rounded  man,  a  great 
man,  and  above  all  a  good  man,  his  departure  left  a  void 
which  cannot  readily  be  filled.  The  State  University  con- 
ferred upon  him  in  1909,  in  recognition  of  his  worth,  the 
honorary  degree  of  LL.D.,  Doctor  of  Laws,  and  no  honor 
ever  conferred  by  the  University  was  more  deservedly  be- 
stowed. 

The  following  appreciation  of  Mr.  Clay  appeared  in  the 
Louisville  Post,  November  29th,  two  days  after  his  death: 


"The  death  of  Cassius  M.  Clay  was  announced  yesterday. 
Mr.  Clay  has  pursued  an  honorable  course  in  public  life 
in  Kentucky.  He  was  a  member  of  the  Legislature,  Presi- 
dent of  the  Constitutional  Convention,  and  always  an  active 
party  leader.  He  was  a  man  of  high  personal  character 
with  a  thoroughly  trained  mind  and  with  high  standards  of 
public  conduct.  Beyond  all  public  office,  Mr.  Clay  was 
interested  as  a  private  citizen  in  public  affairs  and  exhibited 
the  highest  type  of  Kentuckian  in  private  life.  It  is  a  long 
time  since  Mr.  Clay  occupied  a  public  position  or  sought 
one,  but  in  all  these  years  he  has  been  a  loyal  citizen,  ad- 
vising his  fellow  citizens  upon  all  matters  of  public  con- 
cern. It  is  men  like  Mr.  Clay  in  the  private  walks  of  life 
who  direct  and  control  public  opinion.  It  is  to  this  tribunal 
that  every  cause  must  go  for  final  decision. 

"The  death  of  such  a  man  trained  in  the  schools  and 
the  active  callings  of  life  is  a  distinct  loss  to  the  State." 

To  this  estimate  may  be  added  the  action  taken  by  the 
Board  of  Trustees  of  the  State  University  upon  the  resig- 
nation of  Mr.  Clay,  June,  1913,  and  the  resolutions  adopted 
at  the  mid-winter  meeting  following: 

"Mr.  Stoll  suggested  that  the  resolutions  concerning  the 
death  of  Mr.  Cassius  M.  Clay  be  taken  up  at  this  time, 
and  they  were  read  by  Dr.  James  K.  Patterson  as  follows : 

"It  is  with  sincere  regret  that  the  Board  of  Trustees 
of  the  State  University  of  Kentucky  record  the  severance 
of  their  official  relations  with  Hon.  Cassius  M.  Clay  by  his 
voluntary  resignation  of  the  office  of  Trustee  which  he  has 
held  by  appointment  for  nearly  twelve  consecutive  years. 
His  eminent  ability,  his  fine  education — broad,  liberal,  thor- 
ough— his  high  character  for  honor  and  integrity,  his  dis- 
tinguished reputation  for  patriotism  and  practical  statesman- 
ship, and  his  unswerving  loyalty  to  the  best  interests  of  the 
Commonwealth,  all  combined  to  make  him  a  Kentuckian  and 
an  American  citizen  of  the  highest  type.  During  his  long 
connection  with  the  Board  of  Trustees,  Mr.  Clay  gave  dig- 

r  is  ] 


nity  and  prestige  to  the  proceedings.  His  straightforward- 
ness, his  manliness,  his  well  defined  opinions  upon  organiza- 
tion and  policy,  his  utter  impartiality,  and  the  energy  and 
earnestness  and  intelligent  breadth  of  grasp  with  which  he 
expressed  his  convictions  never  failed  to  make  a  deep  im- 
pression on  his  colleagues.  By  all  he  said  and  did  the 
conviction  was  borne  in  upon  all — here  is  a  just  man  and 
a  great,  in  whom  justice  and  truth  are  the  impelling  and 
controlling  elements  of  his  being. 

"During  the  forty-eight  years  of  its  existence,  the  State 
College — now  the  State  University  of  Kentucky — had  no 
more  distinguished  member  of  its  Academic  Board,  no  more 
intelligent  and  impartial  director  of  its  organization  and 
management,  no  more  scholarly  guide  in  framing  and  co- 
ordinating its  policies,  and  no  more  impartial  and  just  arbiter 
in  differences  which  emerged  in  relation  to  its  activities 
and  control. 

"The  untimely  death  of  this  distinguished  man  adds 
poignancy  to  the  regret  felt  because  of  his  voluntary  severance 
of  his  relations  with  us.  Not  the  State  University  only, 
but  his  State  and  the  Nation  are  distinctly  poorer  to-day 
because  of  the  passing  of  such  a  man.  In  the  language 
of  the  Latin  poet  whom  he  loved  so  well, 

"Quis  desiderio  sit  pudor  aut  modus 
Tarn  cari  capitis?" 

"When  Milton  bewailed  the  untimely  death  of  Lycidas, 
Lycidas  was  young.  Mr.  Clay,  though  somewhat  advanced 
in  years  was  young  in  spirit,  full  of  intellectual  vitality  and 
vigor,  in  full  accord  with  all  the  efforts  to  advance  and 
elevate  mankind.  In  him  was  youth  ripened  by  experience, 
but  youth  still.  With  equal  propriety,  then,  and  with  equal 
sorrow  and  regret  we  may  paraphrase  the  language  of 
Milton: 

"Lycidas  is  dead,  dead  while  in  his  prime. 
Who  would  not  'mourn'  for  Lycidas?" 

C  16  ] 


SPEECHES 

AN7D 

WRITTEN   ARTICLES. 


NOTE 
BY  C.  M.  CLAY,  III. 

It  was  Father's  wish  that  certain  of  his  written  articles  and 
speeches  be  preserved  in  book  form  for  his  friends  and  family.  The 
selection  of  these  articles  follows  a  list  made  out  in  his  own  hand- 
writing. Briefly  stated,  the  purpose  of  this  volume  is  to  preserve  his 
ideas  and  opinions  on  various  questions  of  public  interest. 

Representing,  as  it  does,  my  father's  convictions  during  a  consid- 
erable period  of  his  life,  this  book  may  be  said  to  form  a  certain 
approach  to  biography,  as  it  were,  a  record  of  his  position  in  reference 
to  public  issues. 

The  Commencement  theme  at  Yale  is  included,  as  an  early  speci- 
men of  his  thought  and  writing.  A  few  notes  of  explanation  have 
been  inserted  where  thought  necessary. 

Grateful  acknowledgment  is  due  to  Mr.  Wm.  L.  Yerkes  for 
his  invaluable  assistance  to  the  writer  in  the  preparation  of  these 
notes  and  in  the  general  editing  of  this  book ;  and  like  appreciation 
is  expressed  to  Pres.  James  K.  Patterson  for  the  biographical  sketch 
which  forms  its  preface. 

PARIS,  KY.,  Sept.  10,  1914. 


THE    PERMANENCE    OF    ENGLAND. 

Oration    Delivered    at    Yale    During    the    Commencement 
Exercises  of  the  Class  of  1866. 

If  we  were  required  to  determine  whether  a  certain  build- 
ing would  continue  to  exist  with  immunity  from  the  ravages 
of  time,  before  answering  in  the  affirmative  we  should  first 
examine  its  foundations  and  the  materials  of  which  it  was 
constructed;  we  should  see  that  no  rock  in  the  foundation 
was  crushed;  that  the  walls  were  not  racked  by  the  settling 
of  the  superstructure,  but  made  more  firm  and  compact; 
we  should  see  that  the  materials  were  hard  and  lasting  in 
their  very  nature  and  composition.  So,  in  answering  the 
question  whether  England  will  remain  permanently  a  great 
power,  we  shall  first  carefully  examine  the  foundations  of 
her  greatness;  we  shall  see  if  they  are  firm  and  stable,  if 
they  are  resting  on  the  eternal  rock  of  justice  and  right. 

Her  colonies,  commerce,  situation,  institutions,  govern- 
ment, and  the  character  of  her  people  are  the  only  points 
necessary  for  us  to  examine  to  justify  ourselves  in  concluding 
that  England  is  a  great  permanent  power.  The  character 
of  her  people  is  known  to  all;  active,  self-reliant,  and  perse- 
vering, they  are  the  leading  race  of  the  globe.  We  can 
form  no  better  idea  of  this  character  than  by  mentioning 
a  few  of  the  results  wrought  out  by  manly  independence 
and  perseverance.  Here  first  Civil  Liberty  in  the  annals 
of  Modern  Europe  came  in  contact  with  Despotism,  and 
wrested  the  scepter  from  his  grasp.  Here  first  Free  In- 
quiry defied  with  impunity  the  dominion  of  Catholicism  and 
the  spiritual  absolutism  of  the  Pope.  Here  first  a  Shake- 
speare wrote,  with  lifelike  accuracy,  of  human  nature  in  all 
its  phases  and  conditions;  and  a  Milton  san^  of  a  holy  and 

[  21  ] 


sublime  theme  with  fit  power  and  majesty.  Here  the  human 
mind  lit  up,  with  greater  brilliancy  than  ever  before,  the 
vistas  and  intricacies  of  Speculative  Morality,  and  in  physical 
science  made  manifest  the  before  mysterious,  but  now  simple, 
laws  of  nature.  Here  first  were  guarantees  of  personal 
rights  demanded  and  obtained;  and  slowly,  but  surely,  were 
raised  those  bulwarks  of  Civil  Liberty  by  which  the  hum- 
blest subject,  in  the  maintenance  of  the  right,  can  safely 
defy  the  King.  Here  finally  have  revolutions  bloodlessly 
run  their  course,  without  destroying  any  of  those  precious 
guarantees,  or  radically  changing  the  form  of  government. 
In  the  future,  as  in  the  past,  the  English  character  will  be 
the  corner  stone  of  her  greatness;  for  its  stability  and  con- 
servatism are  not  decaying,  but  progressing. 

Let  us  now  examine  her  institutions,  which  are  our  pride 
as  well  as  England's.  The  trial  by  jury  is  free  from  execu- 
tive interference.  No  Star  Chambers  or  extraordinary 
courts  are  tolerated.  The  prerogatives  of  the  King  are  defi- 
nitely defined,  and  more  closely  hedged  in.  The  elective 
franchise  is  more  widely  exercised.  In  fine,  her  institutions 
are  constantly  becoming  more  elaborated  by  internal,  and 
not  external,  action,  and  are  becoming  better  adapted  to 
secure  and  preserve  the  rights  and  liberties  of  a  free  people. 

In  her  government  we  see  this  same  approximation  to 
right.  A  few  years  ago  imprisonment  and  other  outrages 
were  frequently  resorted  to  by  the  government  and  tolerated 
by  the  people.  They  are  so  no  longer.  Then  Irish  wrongs 
were  fearful  realities.  Now  a  much  wiser  and  more  humane 
policy  is  exercised  toward  Ireland.  Her  colonies  are  better 
governed.  Her  internal  policy  is  less  corrupt.  Private 
rights  are  more  carefully  respected.  Broader  and  more  com- 
prehensive views  guide  the  helm  of  State.  Again  there  is 
something  in  the  very  nature  of  the  English  Government 
that  essentially  renders  it  permanent.  No  exclusive  prin- 
ciple has  the  predominance.  Monarchy  is  represented  in  the 
person  of  the  King;  Aristocracy  in  the  House  of  Lords;  and 

C  22  ] 


Democracy  in  the  House  of  Commons.  This  complex  na- 
ture, the  result  of  compromise,  destroys  radicalism  of  every 
species,  and  renders  impossible  opportunities  for  destructive 
revolutions. 

The  situation  of  England  is  such  that  it  is  impossible 
that  she  extend  her  territory  by  continental  conquest,  even 
if  the  European  system  of  balance  of  power  did  not  prevent 
it.  The  extent  of  her  territory  is  incompatible  with  a  larger 
population;  but  yet  the  very  fact  of  isolation  secures  her 
from  conquest  by  a  foreign  foe,  and  the  small  extent  of  her 
territory  guarantees  the  purity  of  the  race,  both  by  prevent- 
ing immigration  and  necessitating  emigration  from  the  more 
worthless  classes. 

Much  can  be  said  of  her  colonies  and  commerce.  Her 
colonies  are  now  more  extensive  and  opulent  than  at  the 
time  British  officials  administered  justice  in  the  United  Col- 
onies of  America;  for,  although  the  grand  "Republic  of  the 
West"  has  long  since  broken  the  ties  that  bound  her  to 
the  mother  country,  she  has  founded  in  the  East  an  empire 
no  less  durable  and  more  opulent  than  that  of  Alexander. 
She  has  more  shipping  than  in  the  most  glorious  era  of  the 
past.  The  very  fact  of  more  extensive  colonies  and  greater 
commerce  is  a  strong  presumption  that  the  climax  of  colo- 
nial and  commercial  greatness  is  not  yet  reached.  We  will 
not,  however,  be  satisfied  with  mere  presumptive  evidence, 
for  it  is  too  liable  to  deceive.  There  was  a  presumption 
that  Rome  under  Augustus,  as  she  was  at  the  acme  of  her 
glory  and  a  conquered  world  lay  at  her  feet,  would  con- 
tinue to  direct  the  destinies  of  nations,  yet  scarcely  four 
centuries  saw  her  lying  at  the  mercy  of  the  barbarian. 

It  is  affirmed  that  as  the  world  becomes  more  civilized 
nations  are  more  impatient  of  external  rule,  and  therefore 
in  course  of  time  England's  colonies  will  become  independent 
nations.  We  deny  the  conclusion — we  deny  it  because  we 
believe  it  false.  So  long  as  the  ruling  nation  is  more  intel- 
ligent, better  able  to  defend  the  colony  from  foes,  to  pre- 

[  23  ] 


serve  order,  and  prevent  civil  commotion,  to  regulate  trade 
and  punish  offenders  against  the  law  of  nations;  so  long 
as  the  colony  is  not  embittered  by  some  great  mistake  in 
policy,  as  in  the  case  of  America,  it  will  be  for  the  interest 
of  the  colony  to  carefully  preserve  its  relations  with  the 
mother  country.  Is  there  any  prospect  that  Indian  civiliza- 
tion will  in  years  to  come  compete  with  Anglican?  Again, 
the  most  intelligent  and  powerful  class  in  all  the  colonies  is 
composed  of  English  emigrants,  men  who  love  their  country, 
take  pride  in  its  past  history  and  esteem  it  a  privilege  that 
they  belong  to  the  empire.  If  independent,  they  will  be 
subject  to  insult,  foreign  domination  and  civil  commotion. 
As  members  of  the  empire,  the  British  power  avenges  their 
wrongs ;  and  they  possess  far  more  privileges  than  the  Ro- 
man could  boast  when  he  exclaimed  with  pride,  "I  am  a 
Roman  citizen." 

But  suppose  for  sake  of  argument  we  grant  the  conclu- 
sion— Cannot  England  in  this  case  connect  herself  with  the 
colonies  by  ties  of  interest  and  gratitude?  Cannot  this 
connection  promote  her  prosperity  fully  as  much  as  the 
present  relation?  It  seems  to  us  very  feasible  for  England, 
even  if  she  cannot  hold  them  as  colonies,  thus  to  establish 
throughout  the  world  independent  nations,  bearing  the  im- 
press of  her  civilization,  having  incorporated  in  their  gov- 
ernments those  principles  of  Anglican  liberty  which  nineteen 
centuries  of  Christian  progress  have  but  barely  evolved  and 
matured;  firm  allies  to  defend  her  in  danger;  the  develop- 
ment of  whose  resources  cannot  but  promote  the  trade  of 
England;  the  noblest  and  proudest  monuments  of  the  indus- 
try and  perseverance  of  that  little  island  whose  past  history 
has  been  a  most  happy  realization  of  the  favorite  maxim 
of  one  of  her  most  illustrious  sons,  "Knowledge  is  power." 

We  see  no  reason  why  her  trade  should  decline.  Her 
people  are  a  commercial  people  both  by  disposition  and  situ- 
ation. The  result  of  having  greater  rivals  in  the  future 
will  only  be  greater  activity  and  energy. 

[  24  ] 


Thus  we  see  her  institutions  made  more  firm  and  sacred 
by  time;  her  government  less  corrupt,  more  nearly  based  on 
principles  of  right  and  justice;  her  situation,  taken  in  con- 
junction with  her  inherent  strength,  such  as  to  defy  foreign 
invasion  and  conquest;  the  character  of  her  people  having 
been  constantly  disciplined  by  struggle  and  suffering,  ap- 
proaching a  more  perfect  state;  her  colonies  and  commerce, 
the  one  adding  materially  to  her  prosperity,  whether  as 
colonies  or  independent  nations,  the  other  not  only  sur- 
passing that  of  all  other  countries,  but  a  blessing  to  human- 
ity, as  it  makes  the  most  civilized  and  religious  people  on 
the  face  of  the  globe  the  principal  agent  of  the  Creator  in 
spreading  civilization  and  religion.  Before  decline,  the  seeds 
of  dissolution  must  be  planted.  We  ask  if  this  approxima- 
tion to  right  in  every  sphere  is  the  forerunner  of  decay? 
If  so,  then  our  ideas  of  right,  morality,  and  the  workings 
of  Providence  are  essentially  wrong.  It  has  been  said  that 
the  prosperity  of  England  began  to  decline  when  continental 
conquest  was  abandoned,  when  France  was  given  up  by  John 
Lackland;  we  deem  it  a  most  fortunate  circumstance  both  for 
her  dignity  and  independence.  We  are  told  that  every  na- 
tion in  the  past  has  risen  only  to  decline.  We  admit  it.  But 
we  claim  that  the  adoption  and  faithful  observance  of  the 
precepts  and  spirit  of  the  Christian  religion  have  added  a 
new  condition  to  the  problem  of  nations.  We  claim  that  in 
the  future  particular  nations  and  civilizations  will  not  be 
brilliant  meteors  that  rise  only  to  disappear,  and  make  more 
hideous  the  darkness  that  follows;  but  great  planets  that 
appear  during  the  whole  night,  and  at  the  dawn  of  the 
perfect  day,  only  dimmed  by  that  great  luminary  from  which 
they  derive  their  radiance.  We  claim  that  these  Christian 
nations  shall  disappear  only  when  the  lines  that  separate 
them  one  from  another  shall  fade  away  in  the  brighter  glory 
of  the  universal  kingdom  of  perfect  right  and  justice. 


ON  THE   CONVENTIONAL   INTEREST  LAW.1 

"We  publish  this  morning  the  speech  of  Hon.  Cassius  M.  Clay, 
Jr.,  on  the  bill  presented  to  the  Legislature  to  repeal  the  ten  per  cent, 
interest  (Conventional  Interest}  lavj.  Mr.  Clay's  speech  will  repay 
careful  perusal.  As  a  specimen  of  close  reasoning,  logical  deduction 
and  philosophical  investigation,  it  is,  perhaps,  unequaled  by  any  speech 
made  this  winter  at  Frankfort.  Mr.  Clay  made  the  bill  now  pend- 
ing the  issue  in  his  canvass  last  summer,  and  his  effort  shows  that  he 
has  given  much  thought  to  the  subject." — Old  clipping,  presumably 
from  a  Louisville  newspaper. 

I  wish  simply  to  make  an  argument  on  this  question 
without  any  attempt  at  rhetorical  display,  without  any  ap- 
peal to  prejudice.  I  will  say  in  the  first  place  that  I  consider 
this  question  from  the  standpoint  of  a  low  actual  rate  of 
interest.  I  consider  a  low  actual  rate  of  interest  much  more 
conducive  to  the  progress  and  prosperity  of  the  country  than 
a  high  rate.  My  policy  \vould  be  to  pass  such  laws,  grounded 
on  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  laws  of  trade,  as  would 
conduce  to  the  furnishing  of  money  to  the  borrower  at  the 
lowest  possible  rate.  But  I  must  say  that  I  differ  widely 
with  the  gentleman  from  Marion  as  to  the  means  by  which 
such  result  is  to  be  obtained.  He  thinks  that  it  can  be  done 


resiaie     lac     issue.         i  iic     v^uiivcnuuiiai     IHICICM.     i-jcivv,      intni     ui      uumpai  duvciy      i  cuci. 
adoption,    allowed    any    interest    to    be    charged    up    to     10%,    provided    the    rate    b 


eight,  ten  and  twelve  per  cent,  interest  was  not  uncommon  in  Kentucky.  The 
National  Government  was  paying  7%  on  some  of  its  indebtedness;  in  fact,  all 
business  was  reaping  the  bad  effects  of  a  depreciated  currency  and  a  consequent 
excessive  speculation. 

C.    M.    Clay's    speech   on    this    subject    was   probably    his    first    speech    of    length    in 
public    life. 

[  27  ] 


by  restriction  and  penalties.     I  believe  that  by  allowing  the 
laws  of  trade  to  work  untrammeled  by  restrictions  and  penal- 
ties we  shall  reach  the  desired  result.     That  is,  I  believe  in 
the  free  trade  principle,  so  far  as  the  State  of  Kentucky  is 
concerned,   being  applied  to  money  as  it  is  to  other  com- 
modities and  services.     I  claim  that  the  law  of  supply  and 
demand  does  in  the  main,  in  spite  of  legislative  interference, 
control  the  actual  rate;  that  it  is  right  that  it  should;  and 
that,  whether  right  or  wrong,  the  tendency  of  the  free  trade 
principle  is  to  lower  the  actual  rate  of  money.     I  claim  that 
the  only  way  in  which  usury  laws  affect  the  actual  rate  is 
as  they  affect  the  supply  of  money  to  be  loaned  or  the  de- 
mand, is  as  they  affect  the  security  or  insecurity  of  the  in- 
vestment.    I  further  claim  that  restriction  has  the  tendency 
to  diminish  the  supply  comparatively  with  the  demand;  has 
the  tendency  to  make  the  profits  of  the  investment  on  account 
of  the  penalties  of  the  usury  laws  more  uncertain;  and  con- 
sequently, the  only  effect  of  usury  laws  is  a  tendency  to  raise 
the  rate  of  interest  in  just  the  proportion  that  such  laws  are 
more  stringent.     And  let  me  right  here  say  that  I   am  in 
favor  of  the   abolition  of  all  usury  laws   and  that   I  only 
favor  the  present  law  in  preference  to  an  eight  or  six  per 
cent,  law,  because  I  consider  it  a  step  in  the  present  condition 
of  public  opinion  on  this  question  necessary  to  be  taken  before 
the   free-trade  principle  can  be  carried  out,   and  because   I 
consider  it  as  the  nearest  approach  to  that  principle  that  is 
now  practicable.      First  as  to  the  justice  of  the   free-trade 
principle.     All  trade  is  an  exchange  of  services.     I  now  lay 
down  the  principle  that  the  loaning  of  money  is  a  service 
rendered  whose  value  arises  in  the  same  way  and  is  con- 
trolled by  the  same  laws  as  that  of  any  other  service  ren- 
dered  or  commodity  sold.      The   money-lender  comes   into 
the  market  offering  to  the  public  a  valuable  service,  whose 
price  is  and  must  be  regulated  by  the  same  laws  as  that  of 
any  other  service — that  is,   by  the  law  of  supply  and   de- 
mand.    When  the  supply  of  available  money  to  be  loaned 

[  28  ] 


is  small  and  the  demand  great,  the  rate  will  be  high;  and 
vice  versa,  when  the  demand  is  small  and  supply  large,  the 
rate  will  be  low.  Although  it  may  not  at  first  be  apparent, 
still  when  we  closely  investigate,  the  loaning  of  money  is  a 
service  rendered  exactly  on  the  same  basis,  so  far  as  value 
is  concerned,  as  all  other  services  in  the  great  domain  of 
exchange.  That  a  man  should  receive  some  compensation 
for  loaning  money  is  apparent.  The  money  is  his  own 
property.  He  could  use  it  to  gratify  his  own  tastes  and 
desires,  or  he  could  use  it  in  the  field  of  production,  and 
there  realize  a  profit  on  his  investment.  In  this  last  case 
it  plays  just  as  an  important  and  necessary  part  as  labor  or 
brains.  Now  it  is  too  evident  for  argument  that  if  a  man 
forego  the  gratification  of  his  desires  or  forbear  by  the  loan- 
ing of  his  money  to  realize  the  profit  which  a  productive 
effort  would  yield,  he  is  entitled  to  pay  or  to  compensation 
for  his  forbearance.  I  further  claim  that  the  only  and  true 
criterion  of  the  value  of  this  service  rendered  is  the  price  it 
obtains  in  the  market;  that  when  the  amount  of  services  to  be 
rendered  in  this  way  is  great  and  demand  small,  the  rate 
will  be  lowr  and  vice  versa. 

As  usury  laws  are  founded  on  the  fallacy  that  to  take 
interest  is  wrong,  and  the  greater  the  interest  the  greater 
the  wrong,  we  will  further  illustrate  the  justice  and  equity 
of  taking  interest.  There  are  a  great  many  individuals  of 
energy  and  determination  who,  without  money,  would  be 
unable  to  carry  on  their  business,  but  are  enabled,  by  paying 
interest  on  money,  to  realize  above  and  beyond  the  rate 
paid  such  a  percentage  as  amply  compensates  them  for  their 
trouble,  and  which  amounts  to  far  more  than  their  personal 
exertions  unaided  by  capital  could  possibly  command.  To 
say  that  the  capitalist  does  not  do  a  service  to  these  men 
is  absurd. 

No — the  loaning  of  money  is  as  much  service  to  a  man 
as  labor  or  any  other  service,  and  the  market  will  properly 
and  justly  discriminate  in  regard  to  the  value  of  this  service. 

[  29  ] 


It  is  no  more  an  accommodation  to  the  capitalist  than  to  the 
borrower,  and  vice  versa.  I  ask  what  reason  is  there  for  the 
Government  to  come  in  and  say  you  shall  not  make  the  best 
bargain  you  can  for  yourself;  to  say  that  you  shall  pay  a 
certain  per  cent.,  and  no  more,  whether  the  loanable  value 
of  money  be  low  or  high?  It  is  a  pernicious  and  harmful 
interference  with  the  rights  of  the  individual;  it  is  a  poor 
compliment  to  the  intelligence  of  the  individual  that,  in 
regard  to  all  other  commodities  he  may  have  free  trade,  but 
in  regard  to  all  money  he  is  not  capable  to  take  care  of  his 
own  interest,  and  must  pay  only  a  certain  per  cent. 

The  gentleman  may  say  that  the  supply  of  money  is 
limited,  and  consequently  the  rate  might  become  excessively 
high.  The  uniformity  of  the  supply  especially  fits  it  for 
its  place  as  a  medium  of  exchange  and  prevents  a  great 
scarcity  or  surplus,  and  consequently  a  great  variation  in  its 
value.  But  even  grant  the  premise  of  the  gentleman;  still, 
as  the  State  of  Kentucky  cannot  control  the  supply  or  de- 
mand, as  it  cannot  increase  the  bulk  of  coin  or  of  the  cur- 
rency, it  is  folly  on  its  part  to  try  to  control  and  lower  the 
rate  by  usury  laws,  since  the  tendency  of  such  law  is  to  in- 
crease the  rate.  I  admit  that  it  is  very  proper  to  have  a 
legal  rate  in  the  absence  of  written  agreement. 

One  moment  now,  to  illustrate  the  justice  of  the  free- 
trade  principle  and  the  statement  that  the  law  of  supply 
and  demand  controls  in  the  main  the  rate  under  all  circum- 
stances. As  I  have  said  before,  if  I  can  prove  the  policy  and 
expediency  of  the  free-trade  principle,  then  I  justify  the 
nearest  practicable  approach  to  it.  Now  for  examples :  In 
England,  where  statesmanship  is  as  enlightened  and  as  free 
from  demagogism  as  anywhere  else  in  the  world,  Parliament 
has  done  away  with  usury  laws,  seeing  their  folly,  and  that 
they  do  not  accomplish  the  end  for  which  they  were  in- 
tended. Money  is  nowhere  cheaper.  Why?  Because  there 
the  supply  is  greater  compared  with  the  demand  than  any- 
where else.  In  Massachusetts  the  Legislature  has  done  away 

[  30  ] 


with  usury  laws,  and  the  average  loanable  value  of  money 
there  is  cheaper  than  in  any  State  of  the  Union.  As  we  come 
West  we  find  that  the  rate  increases,  be  the  usury  laws  what 
they  may.  In  Kentucky  and  Ohio  we  find  money  worth  10 
per  cent.;  in  Illinois,  10  to  15  ;  in  Missouri  and  the  far  West, 
from  15  to  20  per  cent.  And  why?  Just  because  the  supply 
compared  with  the  demand  diminishes.  At  no  time  in  the 
history  of  the  past  do  we  find  the  rate  of  money  higher 
than  when  the  Jews  were  persecuted  and  imprisoned  on 
account  of  usurious  practices,  when  the  whole  principal 
was  put  in  jeopardy  if  more  than  the  legal  rate  was 
charged. 

Any  law  that  is  wise  and  expedient  must  work  well,  being 
rigidly  enforced. 

The  usury  laws  are  never  rigidly  enforced,  but  let  us  see 
what  would  be  the  effect  of  a  rigid  enforcement  of  your  six 
or  eight  per  cent,  usury  laws.  What  would  be  the  result  in 
regard  to  the  borrower?  Here  is  a  man  without  sufficient 
means  to  properly  carry  on  his  business.  With  capital  he 
may  clear  15  per  cent.  Is  it  right  that  he  should  not  be 
allowed  to  borrow  at  above  6  per  cent.,  when  at  that  rate 
he  cannot  borrow  a  dollar,  the  surplus  capital  being  sent  to 
other  markets?  Is  it  right  to  cut  this  man  out  of  this  profit 
to  which  he  should  be  entitled?  Is  it  not  a  grievous  wrong 
to  him?  But  my  opponents  will  say  that  men  will  borrow 
at  too  high  a  rate  for  their  own  good.  This  is  against  the 
natural  law.  Money  will  generally  be  borrowed  at  those 
rates  at  which  it  can  be  advantageously  used,  for  otherwise 
the  demand  will  be  less,  and  consequently  the  rate  will  fall. 
This  matter  properly  regulates  itself.  To  illustrate:  Take 
the  extreme  case  where  all  the  surplus  capital  in  a  commu- 
nity is  held  by  a  few  capitalists.  They  have  a  monopoly 
of  the  money  market.  Say  the  borrower  negotiates  a  loan 
at  8  per  cent.  He  uses  it  in  production  or  in  some  other 
way,  and  realizes  only  7  per  cent,  on  the  capital  invested. 
Now,  as  a  matter  of  course,  he  and  others  whose  venture 

[  31   ] 


turned  out  the  same  way  will  forbear  to  borrow  rather  than 
lose  or  even  not  make  sufficient  money  to  pay  them  for  their 
services  over  and  above  the  cost  of  the  capital  used.  Right 
here,  then,  the  supply  being  the  same,  the  demand  becomes 
less  and  the  rate  will  conform  itself  to  the  business  of  the 
community,  for  the  capitalist  will  loan  at  a  less  rate  rather 
than  that  a  portion  of  his  capital  should  lie  idle. 

Now,  to  illustrate  the  injustice  of  the  usury  laws,  let 
us  for  a  moment  suppose  the  opposite  case.  The  business 
man  or  manufacturer  borrows  at  8  per  cent.  Say  he  real- 
izes 20  per  cent.,  to  make  an  extreme  case.  Would  you 
say  to  this  man,  borrow  your  money  at  6  per  cent,  or  borrow 
none  at  all?  For  the  rigid  enforcement  of  your  old  usury 
laws  would  now  amount  to  prohibition.  He  can  afford  prob- 
ably to  pay  10  per  cent.;  it  may  be  even  an  accommodation 
for  him  to  be  enabled  to  borrow  at  that  rate. 

As  I  have  said  before,  to  say  that  a  man  shall  not  borrow 
unless  he  borrows  at  6  per  cent,  or  below  is  an  injurious 
and  pernicious  interference  of  the  State  with  the  affairs  of 
the  individual,  considered  from  the  borrower's  standpoint. 
To  illustrate  again:  Here  is  an  old  man  who  cannot  pro- 
ductively use  his  capital;  here  the  young  man  who  can,  by 
his  energy  and  business  qualities,  use  this  money  to  the  best 
advantage  and  make  a  good  profit.  You  fix  your  rate  below 
the  actual  value  of  money.  You  thereby  say  to  these  par- 
ties, you  shall  not  strike  your  own  bargain.  If  you  rigidly 
enforce  your  usury  laws,  you  force  the  capital  to  be  sent 
where  it  will  command  its  full  loanable  value. 

Recollect,  gentlemen,  I  am  arguing  now  on  the  suppo- 
sition that  the  usury  laws  are  rigidly  enforced.  Now,  let  us 
consider  what  would  be  the  results  of  a  rigid  enforcement 
of  your  old  usury  laws  on  the  general  prosperity  and  mate- 
rial progress  of  your  State.  Your  money  would  be  used 
to  develop  the  resources  of  other  States.  Your  borrowers 
would  be  unable  to  negotiate  the  loans  necessary  to  carry 
on  business.  Your  enterprises  would  to  a  corresponding 

[  32  ] 


extent  languish  and  die.  Your  coal  and  iron  mines  and 
your  manufactories,  wherever  credit  was  required  in  order 
to  run  them,  would  cease;  the  coal  and  iron  mines  to  give  up 
their  rich  treasures;  the  manufactories  to  yield  the  finished 
commodity.  Capital,  as  fast  as  it  accumulated,  if  it  could 
not  be  employed  by  its  actual  owners  in  developing  our 
physical  resources,  would  leave  the  State  to  find  more  profit- 
able investment.  The  capital  that  we  need  from  other  States 
in  order  to  build  our  railroads  and  establish  our  manufac- 
tories would  be  excluded  and  kept  away.  But,  gentlemen, 
usury  laws  are  never,  and  never  will,  be  generally  enforced. 
They  are  only  partially  enforced.  What  are  the  effects  of 
their  partial  enforcement?  This  one  point  should  condemn 
them.  The  man  who  is  disposed  to  act  rascally  gets  the 
benefit,  while  the  honest  man  always  pays  what  he  agrees  to 
pay.  The  honest  man  not  only  pays  the  actual  value  of  his 
money,  but  an  additional  amount  to  compensate  the  loaners 
for  the  repudiation  by  those  less  honest,  or  in  other  words 
they  pay  insurance  to  the  capitalist  on  his  profits.  Before 
I  go  on  with  my  argument  in  this  direction,  I  will  expose 
the  fallacy  upon  which  the  governmental  interference  is 
founded.  It  was  formerly  supposed  that  governments  could 
fix  the  value  of  money,  and  consequently  its  loanable  value. 
By  value  of  money  I  mean  its  general  power  of  purchasing 
services  or  commodities. 

I  say  that  the  proposition  that  governments  can  arbi- 
trarily fix  the  value  of  money  is  fallacious;  and  also  that 
they  can  fix  its  actual  loanable  value  is  an  absurdity.  For 
in  each  case  the  value,  as  all  values  do,  varies  by  the  law  of 
supply  and  demand  at  the  particular  time.  Governments 
can  fix  the  denominations  of  money  as  they  can  fix  the  num- 
ber of  pounds  in  a  bushel  of  rye,  but  they  can  no  more  con- 
trol the  absolute  value  in  one  case  than  they  can  in  the  other. 
I  use  value  in  the  true  sense  of  purchasing  power. 

That  even  gold  and  silver  vary  in  value,  though  less 
than  other  things  on  account  of  durability  and  uniformity 

[  33  ] 


of  supply,  many  historical  facts  substantiate.  Thus,  300 
years  ago,  it  is  calculated  these  metals  were  worth  from  3 
to  5  times  their  present  value.  Considerable  variations  in 
their  value  took  place  when  Europeans  first  conquered  Mex- 
ico and  South  America.  It  is  calculated  that  silver  then  de- 
preciated in  the  ratio  of  3  to  i.  Again,  when  California 
first  threw  into  the  gold  market  a  large  amount  of  that 
precious  metal  and  gave  reasonable  expectation  of  a  much 
greater  supply,  gold  depreciated  considerably.  That  gov- 
ernments cannot  make  money  and  fix  its  value,  abundant  facts 
show.  The  Continental  money  had  on  the  five-dollar  bill 
the  government  stamp  for  five  dollars;  still  in  a  short  time, 
because  in  spite  of  the  governmental  decree  such  money  was 
not  worth  more,  it  took  five  thousand  of  such  dollars  to  buy 
five  dollars  in  gold.  The  Government  of  the  United  States 
alloys  its  coin,  and  what  is  its  effect?  The  moment  we  trade 
with  an  Englishman,  the  moment  we  go  outside  of  the  field 
of  exchanges  made  in  our  depreciated  coin — for  just  as  we 
alloy  we  depreciate — the  moment  we  trade,  as  I  said  before, 
with  an  Englishman,  he  discounts  our  coin  just  in  proportion 
to  the  alloy;  and  so  on  we  might  multiply  instances  indefi- 
nitely. What  we  wish  to  show  is  that  legislation  cannot 
directly  make  or  alter  values.  One  illustration  now  to  show 
that  the  slightest  differences  of  real  value  will  show  them- 
selves in  spite  of  legislation.  In  1792,  in  our  coinage,  we 
made  our  gold  worth  just  fifteen  times  as  much  as  our  silver. 
What  was  the  effect?  That  gold  rapidly  went  out  of  cir- 
culation on  account  of  over-valuation  of  silver  by  law.  To 
correct  this  and  again  put  gold  in  circulation,  Congress  made 
the  proportion  i  to  16,  but  this  over-valued  gold,  and  silver 
rapidly  was  exported.  To  keep  both  metals  in  circulation, 
it  was  finally  determined  to  debase  the  silver  coin  and  make 
it  legal  tender  for  amounts  no  greater  than  five  dollars. 
This  illustration  forcibly  shows  the  potency  of  the  natural 
laws  that  control  value  in  spite  of  legislation.  You  find  that 
even  gold  and  silver,  which  God  seemed  expressly  to  have 

C  34  ] 


made  for  money  on  account  of  their  durability  and  uni- 
formity of  supply,  do  vary  and  assert  their  value  in  spite 
of  legislation. 

Now  that  we  have  shown  that  the  absolute  value  of  gold 
and  silver  do  vary  in  spite  of  legislation,  there  can  be  no 
basis  on  which  to  found  usury  laws.  For  we  have  already 
shown  in  theory  and  practice  that  the  actual  rate  should  and 
does  vary  according  to  the  law  of  supply  and  demand  and 
compensation. 

Let  us  now  have  a  few  words  in  relation  to  the  message 
of  Governor  Wise,2  which  is  so  much  relied  upon  by  the 
advocates  of  repeal.  And  let  me  remark  that  I  never  saw 
so  many  fallacies  in  such  a  short  space.  It  would  take  too 
long  a  time  to  pick  up  each  fallacious  statement  and  answer 
it  in  detail,  so  I  will  only  expose  the  main  fallacy,  upon 
which  the  others  depend.  Money  is  not  only  a  relative,  for 
I  have  shown  it  is  not  an  absolute  standard  of  value,  but  also 
a  medium  of  exchange.  It  is  not  only  the  measure,  but  the 
thing  measured.  Your  yardstick  is  but  a  measure,  and,  after 
you  ascertain  the  number  of  yards  in  your  cloth,  its  uses 
are  ended,  and  you  pay  for  your  cloth  with  your  medium 
of  exchange.  If  money  was  only  a  measure  of  value,  as  a 
yardstick  is,  and  not  a  medium  of  exchange — that  is,  if 
you  only  estimated,  by  means  of  the  denominations  of  money, 
the  value  between  the  commodities  to  be  exchanged — much 
that  Wise  says  might  be  true.  But  even  yardsticks  have 
value  for  the  particular  purposes  for  which  they  are  used, 
and  that  value  is  controlled  by  the  supply  and  demand  for 
yardsticks. 

Money  is  not  only  a  comparative  standard  of  value,  but 
a  medium  of  exchange.  It  has  two  functions:  one  to  ascer- 
tain the  amount  due,  the  other  to  satisfy  the  debt  owed. 
Not  only  do  you  estimate  you  owe  the  merchant  for  his 
cloth  with  money,  but  with  it  as  medium  of  exchange  or  as 
a  generalized  service  you  pay  him  for  it.  He  sells  to  you 

2  Henry    .\.    Wise,    Governor   of   Virginia,   1856-1860. 

[  35  ] 


the  cloth  for  the  money;  you  sell  to  him  the  money  for  the 
cloth.  It  is  a  clear  case  of  value.  The  service  rendered 
is  mutual — the  value  of  each  is  estimated  in  the  other,  and 
by  law  you  can  control  neither  one  nor  the  other.  Wise  falls 
into  the  same  fallacy  as  many  others  who  have  not  carefully 
and  accurately  studied  the  fundamental  principles  of  political 
economy.  He  considers  actual  value  to  pertain  only  to  com- 
modities, whereas  value  is  the  relation  between  services.  The 
lawyer  is  as  much  entitled  to  compensation  for  services  as 
the  farmer  for  produce.  Again,  value  does  not  depend  upon 
labor,  for  if  a  person  finds  on  his  grounds  a  magnificent  dia- 
mond that  has  lain  where  found  since  creation,  does  the  fact 
that  it  cost  no  labor  in  the  least  diminish  its  value?  No. 
Why  does  that  diamond  have  value?  Because  the  person 
who  has  it  in  his  possession  is  in  a  position  to  do  a  service 
to  the  community.  And  what  fixes  the  value  of  that  service? 
The  market,  the  law  of  supply  and  demand.  Now  the  mo- 
ment value  arises  in  money,  it  matters  not  on  what  account, 
whether  the  Government  has  given  it  special  privileges  or 
not,  from  the  fact  that  it  can  do  anybody  any  service,  that 
value  is  determined  by  what  the  public  will  give  for  that 
service.  This  reasoning  applies  still  stronger  to  the  rate. 
But  to  make  the  case  still  stronger,  grant  that  Wise  is  right 
in  his  reasoning.  He  thinks  that  the  rate  should  be  low,  in 
the  interest  of  borrowers.  I  claim  I  have  the  same  interest 
at  heart.  As  the  State  of  Kentucky  cannot  affect  favorably 
the  supply,  for  it  cannot  make  legal  tenders,  diminish  the 
risk  or  control  the  demand,  it  cannot  reduce  the  rate  fixed 
by  the  free-trade  principle.  In  reality,  as  I  have  shown  and 
will  further  show,  usury  laws  have  the  tendency  to  increase 
the  rate.  So  that  even  under  this  consideration  of  the  ques- 
tion he  would  be  mistaken  as  to  the  means  by  which  his 
objects  are  to  be  obtained. 

Wise  claims  that  money  has  many  advantages  over  many 
things,  and  therefore  its  rate  should  be  controlled  by  law. 
Grant  that  it  has  many  advantages,  and  what  does  it  prove? 

[  36  ] 


Advantages,  whether  given  by  law  or  nature,  have  to  be 
paid  for  by  the  person  who  buys  the  commodity.  Here  is 
a  horse  faster  and  finer  than  any  other  horse  about.  Is  this 
any  reason  why  his  price  should  be  limited  by  law?  The 
man  who  in  the  first  place  purchased  the  horse  had,  in  all 
probability,  to  pay  for  these  advantages;  and  so  in  regard 
to  money.  The  man  who  buys  money  (for  money  must  be 
bought  like  other  things)  pays  for  the  advantages  that  money 
may  have  over  other  things.  The  law  of  compensation  is 
just  as  potent  here  as  elsewhere.  I  will  not  detain  the  House 
longer  with  this  document  of  the  Governor's. 

I  will  come  now  to  the  elaboration  of  the  point  that 
free-trade  is  evidently  in  favor  of  the  borrower,  although 
the  opposite  idea  certainly  dictated  the  usury  laws.  Your 
money  is  kept  at  home.  There  being  no  risk,  the  capitalist 
can  afford  to  lend  at  a  less  rate  of  interest.  Your  money 
staying  at  home,  the  supply  becomes  greater  compared  with 
the  demand,  and  consequently  the  rate  less.  Again,  if  the 
rate  be  higher  than  elsewhere,  money  is  brought  into  the 
State,  and  this  has  a  tendency  to  reduce  the  rate.  I  here 
overthrow  the  fallacy  upon  which  the  usury  laws  are  based; 
for  their  advocates  assume  that  the  real  rate  will  be  what- 
ever the  Government  fixes  as  the  legal  rate.  The  legal  and 
actual  rate  have  no  logical  connection,  unless  we  might  say 
the  more  stringent  the  usury  laws,  other  things  being  equal, 
the  greater  the  actual  rate.  Gentlemen  will  say  that  our  old 
usury  laws  drove  no  money  out  of  the  State.  I  know  very 
little  about  the  private  business  of  individuals,  but  I  have 
been  told  by  two  responsible  parties  that  two  individuals 
in  my  county,  who  loaned  a  very  large  amount  out  of  the 
State,  upon  the  passage  of  the  law  brought  it  back  and 
loaned  it  at  home.  Gentlemen  say  that  they  know  of  no 
money  that  the  present  law  has  brought  into  the  State.  I 
am  informed  by  a  bank  officer  that  one  insurance  company 
brought  into  the  State  and  loaned  out  upon  the  passage 
of  the  law  $3^0,000. 

[  37  ] 


Gentlemen  say  that  they  never  heard  of  much  money 
being  sent  out  of  the  State  on  account  of  usury  laws.  Re- 
adopt  your  old  six  per  cent,  law,  and  let  it  be  rigidly  en- 
forced, and  I  can  assure  these  gentlemen  that  they  will  have 
the  exhibition  that  to  them  is  so  novel.  The  true  reason 
why  not  more  money  was  sent  out  of  the  State  was  that 
your  old  usury  laws  were  never  rigidly  enforced.  This,  and 
this  alone,  was  the  reason. 

Experience  demonstrates  the  truth  of  the  conclusion  at 
which  a  logical  consideration  of  this  subject  enforces  us  to 
arrive.  Almost  every  country  has  had  at  one  time  or  an- 
other stringent  usury  laws,  but  the  progress  of  liberality  and 
enlightenment,  and  a  more  just  appreciation  of  God's  laws 
to  regulate  well  and  wisely  the  field  of  exchange  without  in- 
justice to  any  class,  have  removed  to  a  considerable  extent, 
or  altogether,  the  restrictions  of  usury  laws.  We  are  getting 
more  and  more  alive  to  the  fact  that  man's  interference  by 
legislation  in  these  questions  is  more  apt  to  work  injustice 
than  justice;  that  we  in  our  folly  encourage  by  this  legislation 
the  very  result  we  would  avoid. 

Now  for  a  few  minutes  to  answer  two  objections  made  by 
the  advocates  of  the  repeal :  That  the  passage  of  the  ten 
per  cent,  law  raised  the  rate  in  Kentucky;  that  it  has  depre- 
ciated the  value  of  our  lands.  First,  that  it  has  raised  the 
rate.  I  believe  if  the  law  had  not  passed  the  rate  would 
now  be  higher.  Any  person  with  any  knowledge  of  the  laws 
of  political  economy  could  expect  no  less.  I  claim  that  the 
law  of  supply  and  demand  in  the  main  controls  the  rate. 
What  do  we  see  in  regard  to  the  actual  supply  and  demand? 
In  the  first  place,  in  regard  to  the  supply,  the  currency,  in- 
stead of  being  inflated,  has  been  contracted.  Gold  and  silver 
are  not  in  circulation — one  of  the  necessary  evils  of  an  ir- 
redeemable currency.  On  the  other  hand,  the  demand  has 
increased  tremendously.  During  the  last  three  years  there 
has  been  great  progress  in  railroad  matters.  Great  amounts 
have  been  borrowed  for  railroad  construction. 

[  38  ] 


The  Chesapeake  and  Ohio,  the  Louisville  and  Nashville, 
etc.,  have  been  heavy  borrowers  in  the  market. 

Mining  has  taken  a  fresh  impetus.  Furnaces  and  forges 
have  been  erected  all  along  up  the  Ohio  River;  and  so  on 
in  other  departments  of  business. 

Again.  We  are  reaping  the  penalties  of  an  undue  and 
excessive  speculation,  which  was  stimulated  and  brought  into 
life  by  the  superabundance  of  an  irredeemable  and  depreci- 
ated currency.  That  currency  has  been  contracted  and  appre- 
ciated as  compared  with  gold — and  the  debts  incurred,  if 
unpaid,  now  represent  in  our  present  currency  much  more  in 
value  than  they  did  when  incurred;  or,  in  other  words,  prod- 
ucts and  commodities  from  this  cause  have  shrunk  in  value 
as  compared  with  these  debts,  so  that  men  are  unable  to 
pay  them.  All  these  causes  have  increased  the  demand  for 
money.  What  is  the  inevitable  result  of  these  facts?  That 
the  rate  should  be  higher,  although  the  tendency  of  the  ten 
per  cent,  law  itself  was  to  lower  the  rate. 

Let  me  illustrate  the  workings  of  usury  laws  in  this  and 
other  cases. 

Suppose  the  State  of  Kentucky  should  pass  a  law  that 
wheat  should  not  sell  at  over  fifty  cents  a  bushel;  and  if  a 
person  sold  at  over  fifty  cents  a  bushel  he  should  forfeit  the 
surplus  to  the  purchaser.  Suppose  that  wheat  is  worth  $i 
in  Cincinnati.  What  would  be  the  effect  of  the  law?  Either 
that  no  wheat  would  be  sold  at  home  and  all  sent  to  Cin- 
cinnati, or  else,  if  wheat  was  sold  at  home,  which  would  be 
the  case  if  wheat  was  needed,  it  would  be  sold  at  the  Cin- 
cinnati price,  minus  the  freight,  plus  an  additional  percentage 
to  compensate  the  seller  for  the  risk  he  ran  that  the  pur- 
chaser would  come  back  upon  him  for  the  surplus  over  fifty 
cents.  And,  again,  if  not  as  much  wheat  was  produced  in 
Kentucky  as  needed,  this  law  would  have  the  tendency  to 
diminish  the  supply  by  throwing  obstacles  in  the  way  of  its 
importation,  and  consequently  would  increase  the  price.  Sup- 
pose, furthermore,  an  enlightened  Legislature,  seeing  the 

[  39  ] 


folly  of  such  a  law,  should  repeal  it.  Or  suppose,  to  make 
an  analogous  case,  immediately  after  the  passage  of  the  law, 
the  price  of  wheat  in  Cincinnati,  on  account  of  a  short  crop, 
should  rise  to  $1.50,  and  have  the  tendency  to  reduce  the 
price  at  home,  still  wheat  would  go  up  to  the  Cincinnati 
price,  minus  freight,  if  more  wheat  was  made  in  Kentucky 
than  consumed,  and  vice  versa  to  the  Cincinnati  price  plus 
freight.  This  illustrates  the  working  of  the  interest  law  and 
the  present  state  of  the  money  market. 

Now,  gentlemen,  one  word  of  advice  how  to  reduce  the 
rate  of  interest.  We  must  curb  the  wild  and  reckless  specu- 
lative spirit  of  the  present  time  and  do  business  on  a  safer 
and  more  secure  basis.  Less  money  must  be  borrowed.  A 
few  words  in  regard  to  the  depreciation  of  land.  Gentlemen 
say  the  ten  per  cent,  law  has  depreciated  the  value  of  our 
lands.  I  admit  land  has  depreciated,  but  not  so  much  as 
some  suppose,  because  the  currency  as  compared  with  the 
gold  has  considerably  appreciated.  Grant  the  premise  and 
what  are  the  causes  of  its  depreciation?  But  before  I  give 
my  causes,  I  will  state  that  lands  in  other  surrounding  States 
have  depreciated  as  much,  or  more,  than  they  have  in  Ken- 
tucky. I  know  of  a  farm  in  Illinois,  to  take  an  instance, 
that  cannot  now  be  sold  for  much  over  half  what  it  could 
five  years  ago.  In  western  Virginia  lands  that  five  years 
ago  actually  sold  for  over  one  hundred  dollars  can  now 
hardly  find  a  purchaser  at  any  price.  Let  me  ask  the  advo- 
cates of  the  repeal  to  explain  the  still  greater  depreciation 
of  land  in  other  States  where  the  interest  laws  have  not  been 
molested.  But  to  return.  What  are  the  real  causes  of  this 
depreciation?  First,  the  farm  products  have  diminished  in 
value.  Our  cattle  market  in  Bourbon  is  entirely  controlled 
by  the  New  York  market,  outside  the  influence  of  our  laws; 
our  grain  and  hog  market  by  the  Cincinnati  market,  also 
outside;  our  mule  market  by  the  Southern  and  Eastern  mar- 
ket, also  outside  the  influence  of  our  laws;  our  other  products 
are  fed  to  one  or  the  other  of  the  above  classes  of  live 

[  40  ] 


stock.  So  you  see  our  profits  are  not  affected  by  the  ten 
per  cent,  law;  but,  nevertheless,  our  profits  have  diminished 
in  value,  and  as  a  matter  of  course  this,  to  a  certain  extent, 
has  depreciated  the  value  of  land. 

Again,  the  railroad  progress  in  the  West  has  brought  a 
great  many  cheap  lands,  just  as  rich  as  ours,  just  or  nearly 
as  accessible  to  market,  in  close  competition  with  us.  Again, 
the  unreliability  of  our  labor  has  made  irksome  and  dis- 
agreeable the  business  of  farming.  The  effect  of  this  is  to 
throw  a  great  many  lands  into  the  market.  The  supply  of 
lands  to  be  sold  increasing  and  the  demand  diminishing,  the 
price  has  depreciated.  These  and  other  causes  have  pro- 
duced the  depreciation  in  the  value  of  lands. 

Many  of  the  causes  are  the  same  that  caused  land  to 
depreciate  50  per  cent,  in  less  than  twelve  months  during 
the  stringent  times  following  the  panic  of  1847.  One  of 
the  principal  causes  of  the  panic  was  the  rapid  conversion  of 
the  currency  in  the  loan  market  into  fixed  capital  by  an  al- 
most unprecedented  progress  in  railroad  construction. 

Now,  permit  a  brief  recapitulation  of  the  points  made. 
Money  loaned  is  a  service  rendered,  whose  value,  like  the 
value  of  all  other  services,  is  and  always  will  be  controlled 
by  the  law  of  supply  and  demand  and  compensation.  It  is 
a  service  whose  value  varies  with  the  hour  as  does  the  value 
of  any  other  commodity.  It  is  just  as  proper  for  the  State 
to  say  that  hogs  and  cattle  shall  sell  at  a  certain  price.  Some 
one  will  say  that  money  is  a  necessity  for  men  to  have,  and 
consequently  in  its  rate  should  be  controlled  by  law.  Grant 
the  necessity  and  this  is  the  very  reason  why  your  usury  laws 
are  of  no  avail.  Men  will  have  money,  and  in  order  to  get 
it,  have  to  pay  its  value  and  more  than  full  value,  on  account 
of  the  risk  that  usury  laws  produce. 

If  my  opponent  says  money  is  a  standard  of  value,  and 
that  governments  can  fix  its  absolute  and  loanable  value,  I 
answer,  granting  the  proposition  for  sake  of  argument,  that 
anyway  the  State  of  Kentucky  cannot  fix  an  absolute  value; 

[  41   ] 


but,  however,  I  deny  the  truth  of  the  proposition.  For 
money,  though  an  imperfect  standard  of  value,  which  I  will 
not  elaborate  here,  and  which  you  will  find  elaborated  in  all 
books  on  the  subject  of  recent  date,  is  also  a  medium  of 
exchange.  As  a  standard  of  value,  money  has  no  more 
value  than  yardsticks — the  cost  of  making — but  as  a  medium 
of  exchange  it  has,  and  that  value  is  controlled  by  the  law 
of  supply  and  demand.  Governments  can  fix  the  denomi- 
nations of  money,  as  they  can  the  number  of  pounds  in  a 
bushel  of  wheat,  but  they  can  no  more  fix  its  value  than 
they  can  that  of  the  bushels  of  wheat.  It  is  not  only  the 
bushel  measure,  but  also  the  bushel  of  wheat. 

I  admit  money  varies  in  value  less  than  other  things, 
but  this  is  on  account  of  the  uniformity  of  supply.  Now, 
again,  the  loanable  rate  is  also  controlled  at  any  particular 
time  by  the  law  of  supply  and  demand.  Therefore  usury 
laws  that  make  the  legal  rate  very  low,  and  which  may 
work  little  or  no  injustice  when  the  loanable  rate  is  very 
low,  when  the  loanable  rate  is  high  work  great  injustice. 
So  the  only  way  in  which  the  six  per  cent,  limit  can  be 
justified  is  by  a  state  of  affairs  that  keeps  the  actual  rate 
continually  below  the  limit  fixed  in  the  law,  so  that  the  law 
would  practically  give  free  trade. 

Further,  in  the  way  of  recapitulation,  I  claim  that  usury 
laws  are  against  the  interest  of  the  borrower;  for,  if  the 
law  be  rigidly  enforced,  money  is  sent  to  where  it  can  be  more 
profitably  used  or  is  put  to  other  uses,  and  consequently  the 
wants  of  the  borrower  cannot  be  satisfied  at  the  legal  rate. 
What  general  effects  would  the  rigid  enforcement  of  your 
old  six  per  cent,  usury  laws  bring  about?  Would  your  bor- 
rowers be  benefitted?  Would  your  manufactories  be  ex- 
tended? Would  your  internal  improvements  go  on  with  a 
greater  impetus?  Would  more  railroads  be  built?  Would 
your  coal  and  iron  mines  be  as  rapidly  developed?  Your 
accumulated  capital  in  the  hands  of  capitalists  would  be 
loaned  in  those  markets  where  it  would  command  its  full 

C  42  ] 


loanable  value.  Your  money  would  command  its  full  loan- 
able value.  Your  money  would  be  used  in  developing  the 
resources  of  other  States,  in  building  their  railroads,  their 
canals,  their  furnaces  and  manufacturing  establishments. 

No  foreign  capital  would  find  its  way  into  your  State  for 
investment  so  long  as  your  fixed  rate  was  below  the  actual 
rate.  Your  young  business  men  would  be  unable,  so  long 
as  your  usury  laws  were  enforced,  to  get  the  necessary  capital 
to  carry  on  their  business  or  open  up  new  enterprises,  and  at 
the  same  time  would  be  deprived  of  the  profits  to  which 
they  would  be  justly  entitled.  Now,  if  on  the  other  hand, 
as  is  always  the  case,  the  law  be  partially  enforced,  the 
honest  man  not  only  pays  the  fair  value  of  his  money,  but 
an  additional  percentage  to  compensate  for  the  average  risk 
and  diminished  supply;  whereas,  the  dishonest  man  gets  the 
full  benefit  of  the  laws  as  a  premium  on  his  dishonesty  and 
breach  of  faith. 

We  further  claim  that  usury  laws  infringe  on  the  rights 
of  property  and  the  right  of  the  individual  to  make  as  good 
a  bargain  for  himself  as  he  can.  Usury  laws  take  for  granted 
that  a  man  is  not  the  best  judge  of  his  own  interest,  a  fallacy 
exploded  by  time  and  experience. 

My  argument  is  done,  and  by  the  argument  I  am  willing 
that  this  bill  should  live  or  die.  I  am  convinced  that  against 
me  are  all  the  prejudices  of  the  medieval  past  and  the  dema- 
gogism  of  the  present.  I  do  not  mean  to  assert  that  there 
are  not  on  this  floor  many  honest,  conscientious  advocates  of 
the  bill  under  discussion.  With  me  is  the  enlightenment  of 
the  nineteenth  century.  Against  me  are  those  who  think  they 
can  fix  and  make  the  value  by  legislation,  and  who  have  thus 
solved  the  problem  of  national  prosperity;  for  if  they  can 
make  money  worth  six  per  cent.,  they  can  make  it  worth  a 
thousand;  and  if  they  can  make  an  ounce  of  gold  worth  a  dol- 
lar, they  can  make  it  worth  a  million.  All  reforms  are  at- 
tended with  difficulties,  but  I  am  thoroughly  convinced  that 
I  am  right  in  this  matter,  and  now  warn  you  that  your  bill 

[  43  ] 


will  not  bring  about  the  results  you  desire.  In  reality,  it 
will  have  the  opposite  tendency.  Restrictions  on  trade  are 
always  attended  with  bad  results.  The  wiser  we  become 
the  more  fully  we  acknowledge  and  appreciate  the  adequacy 
of  nature's  laws  to  give  justice  to  all,  the  strong  and  the 
weak  alike — and  that  it  is  only  the  interference  of  man  in 
the  field  of  commerce  that  gives  rise  to  oppression  and  wrong. 
"As  the  harmony  and  beauty  of  the  celestial  system  is 
finally  found  to  result  from  the  most  simple  laws,  so,  as  men 
become  wiser,  they  more  fully  see  and  appreciate  the  ade- 
quacy of  the  natural  laws  to  well  and  wisely  control  and  regu- 
late the  productive  energy  of  the  country,  and  to  give  to 
internal  trade  and  foreign  commerce  that  harmony  and 
beauty  whose  moral  results  are  justice  and  equality  to  all,  and 
whose  physical  results  are  material  development  and  prog- 
ress. As  we  grow  more  cognizant  of  the  physical  and  men- 
tal phenomena  around  us,  we  more  and  more  acknowledge 
the  power  of  the  All-seeing  Providence  to  do  all  things  well; 
the  more  and  more  are  we  forced  to  condemn  the  officious 
and  improper  meddling  of  governments  with  the  laws  of 
trade,  upon  which  depend  alone  a  nation's  prosperity  and 
happiness." 


THE    ELECTORAL    BILL   AGITATION. 

From  the  True  Kentuckian,  Paris,  Sept.  5,  1877. 

We  would  think  the  Electoral  Commission  Bill  an  issue 
of  the  past,  at  least  inside  the  Democratic  party,  if  certain 
politicians,  who  opposed  that  scheme  of  Arbitration,  were 
not  now  using  in  their  public  speeches  and  otherwise  their 
opposition  to  it  as  a  means  of  making  political  capital  for 
themselves  at  the  expense  of  those  who  differed  from  them. 
We  would  not  now  care  to  say  anything  in  reference  to  this 
subject,  were  not  the  efforts  of  these  gentlemen  (they  well 
knowing  that  extreme  and  sensational  views  take  well  in  a 
community  in  which  a  strong  partisan  majority  exists)  add- 
ing fuel  to  the  flames  of  the  strong  partisan  spirit  which  is, 
and  has  ever  been,  one  of  the  principal  dangers  threatening 
the  perpetuity  of  institutions.  As  it  is,  we  think  it  not  in- 
appropriate to  say  a  few  words  with  reference  to  this  subject. 
We  shall  speak  from  a  Democratic  standpoint,  but  let  us  hope 
at  the  same  time  from  a  patriotic  one. 

What  was  the  situation  of  affairs  when  the  Electoral 
Commission  bill  was  brought  into  shape  by  the  joint  com- 
mittee of  the  two  Houses  of  Congress?  The  "prima  facie" 
case,  if  not  against  us,  was  at  least  in  doubt.  There  was  no 
statute  law  to  settle  a  contested  Presidential  election.  The 
clause  of  the  Constitution  in  regard  to  counting  the  vote  was 
vague  and  indefinite,  leaving  it  in  some  doubt  whether  that 
power  resided  in  the  President  of  the  Senate  or  in  Congress; 
and  if  in  Congress,  whether  the  power  to  throw  out  the  vote 
of  a  State  existed;  and  if  it  did  exist,  whether  either  branch 
could  use  such  power  at  will;  whether  it  was  necessary  that 
joint  action  should  be  had;  and  if  joint  action  was  imperative, 

[  45  ] 


whether  through  the  action  of  the  two  houses  as  a  joint  as- 
sembly or  simply  as  acting  concurrently. 

It  is  true  that  the  twenty-second  joint  rule  had  been  in 
force,  but  this  rule  had  been  repudiated  by  the  Senate,1  only 
five  Democratic  Senators  (we  think)  holding  that  it  was  not 
repealed.  It  would  have  been  improper  and  dangerous  for  a 
Democratic  House  at  such  a  critical  state  of  affairs,  to  have 
insisted  upon  a  rule  repudiated  by  their  party  in  the  Senate. 
Many  dangerous  and  distracting  rumors  as  to  what  would  be 
the  action  of  the  President  of  the  Senate  in  counting  the  vote 
and  declaring  the  result  were  afloat  throughout  the  country. 
On  the  other  hand,  Republicans  were  led  to  believe  that  the 
Democrats  intended  to  install  Tilden  by  force.  The  country 
was  alive  with  indignation  meetings.  In  fine,  the  passions  of 
both  parties  were  aroused  to  the  highest  pitch  of  excitement. 
Having  briefly  stated  the  situation,  we  now  ask  what  was 
the  duty  of  a  patriotic  representative  or  statesman  under 
such  circumsances?  And  first  let  us  speak  of  one  thing  that 
more  than  all  else,  we  think,  threatens  danger  to  our  Repub- 
lic. It  is  the  spirit  of  disregard  for  law  (we  speak  of  law 
both  in  its  statutory  and  constitutional  sense)  and  a  want  of 
respect  and  reverence  for  the  authority  of  the  law  and  legal 
methods. 

With  us,  if  we  would  preserve  our  institutions,  the  law 
must  be  king;  and  all  the  loyalty  which  in  other  countries 
clusters  around  Kings  and  Emperors  must  be  faithfully  given 
to  the  law.  This  is  the  only  way  (and  the  true  student  of 
the  history  of  Republics  kno\Ars  this  well)  in  which  our  insti- 
tutions can  be  kept  stable  and  at  the  same  time  progressing. 
All  the  conservative  forces  of  intelligence  and  morality  which 
are  necessary  to  our  salvation  must  work  in  this  channel,  or 
else  chaos  and  anarchy  await  us.  As  a  corollary  to  this 

1  "By   a   joint    rule,    adopted    in    February,  1865,   by    the   two    Houses,    preliminary 

to    counting    the    electoral    votes    cast    at    the  Presidential    election    of    1864,    it    was 

directed  that  'no  electoral  vote  objected  to  shall  be  counted  except  by  the  con- 
current votes  of  the  two  Houses.'  This  rule  necessarily  expired  with  the  Congress 

which    adopted    it,    but    it    was    observed    as    a  regulation    (no    one    raising    a    question 

against  it)  in  counting  the  electoral  votes  of  1868  and  1872." — Elaine,  Twenty 
Years  in  Congress. 

[  46  ] 


proposition,  the  wild  spirit  of  party  must  be  curbed  and  re- 
strained to  a  strict  observance  of  the  law  and  legal  methods. 
Now,  the  patriotic  Representative  knew  that  there  was  no 
perfectly  legal  method  for  the  satisfactory  adjustment  of  the 
peculiar  phase  that  the  Presidential  question  had  assumed, 
therefore  it  was  his  duty  to  use  his  best  endeavors  for  the 
supplying  of  this  void  in  the  laws  by  a  legal  enactment  of  as 
fair  and  as  just  a  character  as  possible  under  the  circum- 
stances. This  was  done;  and  the  better  elements  of  society, 
before  the  final  judgment  of  the  Commission,  and  before 
prejudice  was  excited  by  the  bias  of  disappointed  individuals, 
approved  the  law  passed  as  the  best  possible  scheme  of  ad- 
justment; dread  and  apprehension  were  everywhere  changed 
into  relief  and  satisfaction.  As  it  happened  that  Hayes,  Re- 
publican, was  declared  elected  by  the  operation  of  this  bill, 
some  radical  Democrats  find  this  a  most  fortunate  time  in 
their  speeches  to  the  people  to  make  their  opposition  to  this 
bill  seem  an  act  of  great  virtue,  courage,  wisdom  and  espe- 
cial foresight;  and  all  this,  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  men 
who  in  the  passage  of  this  bill  stood  nobly  by  their  country 
in  spite  of  party  clamor;  and  all  this,  having  for  its  accom- 
plishment, if  not  its  intention,  the  making  of  a  still  more  bit- 
ter and  rancorous  sectional  and  partisan  spirit,  which  spirit 
already  is  the  disgust  of  all  educated  and  philosophical  for- 
eigners who  study  our  institutions.  These  men  denounce  the 
bill  as  unconstitutional,  as  cowardly  and  as  a  fraud.  We 
shall  notice  but  two  or  three  of  their  principal  objections,  for 
our  space  will  not  further  permit. 

Firstly,  we  will  not  argue  this  question  with  them,  for 
what  we  should  say  would  be  only  a  repetition  of  what  has 
already  been  so  much  better  said  by  others.  We  shall  only 
refer  them  to  the  arguments  in  the  Senate  and  House  of 
those  greatest  legal  luminaries  of  both  parties — Bayard, 
Thurman  and  others  on  the  part  of  Democrats;  Edmunds, 
Conkling,  Hoar  and  others  on  the  part  of  the  Republicans. 
The  opinions  of  these  great  legal  minds,  unopposed  by  a 

[  47  ] 


single  one  of  great  note  on  the  other  side,  will  always  be 
conclusive  with  the  intelligent  American  public,  regardless 
of  what  local  politicians  may  say  of  the  constitutionality  of 
the  law. 

Again,  among  other  objections  (from  a  partisan  stand- 
point) to  this  bill,  it  is  said  that  if  the  bill  had  not  passed, 
Tilden  would  have  been  inaugurated.  They  explain  it  in 
this  way — had  the  House  refused  to  agree  to  any  announce- 
ment by  the  Senate  and  its  President  of  the  election  of  Hayes, 
or  had  such  announcement  been  impossible  from  a  division 
of  opinion  in  the  Senate  itself;  then,  there  being  no  election 
legally  announced,  the  House  would  have  had  the  constitu- 
tional right  to  elect.  What  a  perversion  of  the  constitution ! 
In  369  electoral  votes,  none  being  thrown  out  and  there  be- 
ing only  two  candidates,  one  or  the  other  in  constitutional 
sense  necessarily  had  a  majority  of  such  votes.  The  consti- 
tution only  allows  an  election  by  the  House  when  it  is  ascer- 
tained that  "no  person  have  such  majority."  As  long  as 
there  was  no  vote  legally  thrown  out,  and  there  was  in  fine 
no  legal  ascertainment  that  neither  of  the  candidates  had  a 
majority  of  all  votes  cast  (which  ascertainment  under  the 
circumstances  was  impossible),  so  long  the  House  had  no 
right  to  elect. 

Again,  and  we  will  notice  but  one  more  point  for  other- 
wise it  will  make  our  article  too  long,  these  objectors  say :  if 
Tilden  had  only  been  firm  and  had  publicly  announced  that 
he  had  been  elected  and  would  take  his  seat,  he  would  have 
been  peaceably  installed  in  office.  It  were  many  times  better 
for  the  country  that  Hayes  should  have  gone  into  office 
peaceably  and  under  the  strict  operation  of  law,  than  that 
Tilden  should  in  either  the  absence  or  disregard  of  law,  how- 
ever much  we  Democrats  might  prefer  a  Democratic  adminis- 
tration, occupy  the  presidential  chair.  Let  us  love  our 
party,  but  let  us  love  it  as  a  chosen  instrument  to  do  good  to 
our  country.  Let  us  know  that  all  our  rights  of  life,  liberty 
and  property  have  for  their  only  barrier  against  the  powers 

[  48  ] 


of  communism,  anarchy  and  confusion  the  force  and  author- 
ity of  the  law — these  let  us  not  weaken,  but  strengthen. 
However  much  we  condemn  the  judgment  of  the  Electoral 
Commission — and  we  do  believe  that  judgment  unjust  and 
wrong — still  we  will  ever  hold  that  day  on  which  the  bill 
became  a  law  one  of  the  proudest  days  of  the  Republic.  It 
was  a  day  bespeaking  a  long  continuance  of  our  institutions 
in  a  stable  and  liberty-giving  form.  It  showed,  when  in  the 
midst  of  an  unexampled  partisan  feeling,  when  the  body  poli- 
tic was  in  the  throes  of  one  of  the  greatest  convulsions,  which 
in  all  probability  Providence  has  in  store  for  it,  that  our 
American  politician  when  brought  to  the  test  had  sufficient 
sense  and  moral  courage  to  lay  aside  that  bitter  partisan 
spirit,  which  all  well  informed  men  know  is  the  bane  of  the 
Republic,  on  the  altar  of  patriotism. 

The  Democratic  politicians  who  voted  for  the  bill,  in  do- 
ing their  country  good,  conferred  a  benefit  on  their  party. 
The  Democratic  party  could  not  have  afforded  to  have  re- 
fused the  Electoral  bill,  and  they  could  not  have  afforded, 
even  if  it  could  have  been  done  peaceably,  which  we  do  not 
grant,  to  have  put  Tilden  in  office  in  disregard  of  legal  meth- 
ods and  in  antagonism  to  the  law-loving  spirit  of  the  country. 
The  reaction  would  have  come  and  the  party  showing  itself 
indifferent  or  disloyal  to  the  law  would  have  been  hurled 
from  power  as  unfit  to  rule  the  destinies  of  this  great  Repub- 
lic to  whose  maintenance  all  the  forces  of  wealth,  intelli- 
gence, liberty  and  morality  in  self-preservation  are  pledged. 


EXTRACTS    FROM    RAILROAD    ARTICLES. 

I.     ON  PUBLIC  AID  OF  LOCAL  COMPANIES. T 

Many  of  our  party  cling  to  the  old  Democratic  belief  that 
taxes  should  only  be  levied  for  governmental  purposes,  a 
doctrine  which  finds  considerable  strength  from  an  analysis 
of  the  purposes  for  which,  in  theory  at  least,  individuals  as- 
sociate themselves  together  as  States.  In  state  of  nature  be- 
fore government  was  constituted,  if  such  state  ever  existed, 
every  man,  in  theory  at  least,  was  independent  as  nations  are 
now.  To  make  government  possible  concession  was  neces- 
sary. For  the  protection  afforded  by  the  government,  the 
right  to  taxation  and  infliction  of  punishment  was  granted  to 
the  government.  It  was  necessary  for  the  individual  to  have 
such  protection  as  to  promote  his  general  welfare;  but  it  was 
also  necessary  that  certain  individual  rights  be  given  up;  and 
further,  in  our  form  of  government,  it  was  agreed  that  the 
majority  was  to  control.  It  all  may  be  considered  a  contract 
between  the  government  and  individuals.  But  the  majority 
by  this  arrangement  has  only  the  right  to  rule  when  the  ob- 
ject comes  within  the  view  of  the  original  agreement.  Hence, 
it  might  be  deduced  that  only  for  governmental  purposes  for 
which  we  are  associated  together  as  a  nation,  the  majority 
has  the  right  to  control.  As  a  collateral  idea  to  strengthen 
this  view  of  the  question,  we  would  say  there  certainly  must 
be  some  limit  to  the  power  of  the  majority  or  else  universal 
suffrage  would  be  the  greatest  despotism  to  which  time  has 
even  given  birth. 

1  This  and  the  following  series  of  extracts  are  taken  from  discussions  of  various 
local  railroad  projects,  presented  for  approval  to  the  people  of  Bourbon  County 
during  the  years  1870-85;  viz.:  The  Union  Railroad,  Paris,  Georgetown  &  Frank- 
fort, etc.  The  few  passages  in  this  book  have  been  chosen  with  the  view  of 
illustrating  as  connectedly  as  possible  the  two  chief  principles  involved. 

[  51   ] 


Nearly  all  the  states,  I  believe,  where  the  railroad  system 
has  been  in  a  reasonable  degree  extended,  have  constitution- 
ally prohibited  public  railroad  subscription.2  *  *  * 

The  motive  that  (in  the  main)  influenced  our  Legislature 
in  the  first  place,  and  for  years  after,  to  allow  counties  by 
popular  vote  to  subscribe  aid  to  railroads,  was  the  feeling 
and  the  fact  that  only  in  that  way  could  they  be  built.  It 
was  not  alone  from  reason  of  the  public  advantage  being  pro- 
moted, for  manufactories,  foundries,  shops  and  stores  are  of 
advantage  to  the  public  by  furnishing  by  their  competition 
their  products  and  wares  at  cheaper  rates;  but  it  was  from 
the  fact  that  private  capital  was  inadequate,  in  the  case  of 
the  railroad,  to  the  magnitude  of  the  undertaking,  while  in 
the  case  of  factories,  etc.,  private  capital  was  considered  am- 
ple and  able.  In  other  words,  in  the  past,  what  justified  and 
excused  popular  aid  to  railroads  by  majority  vote,  was  the 
absolute  necessity  of  such  aid  for  the  building  of  even  the 
most  paying  and  needed  roads. 

It  is  a  principle  well  understood  and  recognized  that  a 
popular  vote  even  in  regard  to  matters  of  governmental  do- 
main is  not  the  safest  custodian  of  financial  interests.  Much 
more  objectional  is  it  as  the  arbiter  of  expenditure  in  regard 
to  matters  that  go  beyond  governmental  control  and  which 
are  of  doubtful  principle  and  constitutionality.  The  neces- 
sity of  popular  subscription  to  railroads  by  majority  vote  has 
passed  away.  The  country  has  come  to  that  state  of  wealth, 
accumulated  capital,  low  rates  of  interest,  and  business  skill 
in  every  department,  that  railroads  are  everywhere  being 
built  by  private  and  corporate  enterprise.  The  necessity  for 
popular  aid  having  passed  away,  why  should  not  also  the 
measures  or  principles  that  spring  from  it  pass  away?  Is  it 
to  be  held  that  we  should  forever  cling  to  all  the  bad  prece- 
dents of  the  past  simply  because  they  are  precedents? 

With  equal  reason  it  could  be  claimed  that  the  war  meas- 

'  Written  about  1885.  Under  the  old  laws  of  the  State,  Counties  could,  at 
the  discretion  of  the  Court,  by  a  majority  vote,  levy  taxes  to  promote  railroad  con- 
struction. This  was  done  away  with  in  1891  in  the  new  Constitution  of  that  year. 

[  52  ] 


ures  and  the  unconstitutional  executive  interference  in  the 
South  immediately  after  the  war  should  now  be  continued, 
although  the  necessity  that  then  justified  or  excused  them  has 
passed  away  forever.  Let  us  rather  vote  down  this  proposi- 
tion. Let  us  act  in  a  spirit  consistent  with  the  growing  sen- 
timent of  the  country,  with  the  best  intelligence  of  the  State, 
and  in  fine  with  the  true  theory  of  our  government.  *  *  * 
Our  system  of  government  is  political  and  organized  for 
political  or  governmental  purposes,  and  it  was  never  in- 
tended by  its  founders  to  engage  in  general  business.  This 
was  left  for  the  province  of  individuals.  *  *  * 


II.  ON  LIMITING  RAILROADS  TO  RAILROAD  BUSINESS.1 

As  the  railroad  party  has  made  all  the  speeches  and  done 
nearly  all  the  electioneering,  it  is  but  proper  that  the  other 
side  should  be  heard.  In  publicity  and  discussion,  if  carried 
on  in  a  proper  spirit,  there  can  only  be  good.  Truth  comes 
out  stronger  by  conflict,  and  error,  in  proportion  to  the  thor- 
oughness of  the  discussion,  is  eliminated.  *  *  * 

It  is  a  very  vicious  system  to  allow  a  railroad  (especially 
a  coal  and  lumber  road)  to  own  coal  and  lumber  lands;  for 
it  will  in  some  way  or  other  prevent  that  free  competition 
that  is  necessary  to  furnish  these  articles  at  lowest  price  to 
the  consumer.  *  *  * 

I  have  an  instance  in  mind — that  applies  to  other  articles 
equally  as  well  as  coal — of  how  just  such  a  railroad  enter- 
prise as  these  gentlemen  propose,  turned  out  in  regard  to  this 
point  of  which  I  speak.  In  the  Legislature  of  1872-1873 
there  was  a  railroad  bill  proposed  by  the  member  from  Hop- 
kins County,  which  originated  from  the  following  condition 
of  affairs.  The  county  of  Hopkins  and  other  counties  had 
subscribed  to  build  a  railroad  to  the  nearest  coal  fields.  The 

1  Written    some  twenty   years   before   Federal   action   on    this   subject. 

[  53  ] 


railroad  owned  coal  lands  as  in  our  case,  and  so  far  as  I  can 
recollect  there  was  the  greatest  similarity  with  this  present 
project.  The  road  was  built  and  run.  The  member  from 
Hopkins — he  so  informed  us — had  a  coal  mine  upon  this 
road,  but  still  he  was  compelled  to  buy  every  bushel  of  coal 
which  he  used  at  home  at  an  exorbitant  rate.  The  company 
always  managed  to  have  only  cars  for  their  own  coal  and 
never  enough  to  carry  other  people's  coal.  The  bill,  if  I  re- 
call rightly,  proposed  to  compel  the  company  to  furnish  loco- 
motive power  to  carry  cars  that  individuals  and  firms  at  their 
own  cost  might  place  on  the  track.  I  do  not  recollect  the 
fate  of  the  bill;  but  I  use  this  instance  to  show  how  vicious 
it  is  in  principle  to  allow  a  coal  and  lumber  road  to  go  into 
coal  and  lumber  business,  particularly  when  said  road,  as  is 
proposed  in  the  present  case,  is  built  wholly  or  in  part  by  the 
public  subscription,  and  consequently  for  the  public  good  and 
not  private  gain. 

The  most  enlightened  Legislatures  of  the  present  day, 
profiting  by  experience,  have  followed  the  principle  that  an 
incorporated  company  shall  confine  itself  to  one  business — 
railroads  to  railroading — banks  to  banking — mining  com- 
panies to  mining,  etc.  Corporations,  since  they  are  granted 
privileges  that  individuals  do  not  possess,  to  prevent  an  abuse 
of  their  power,  and  for  the  protection  of  the  public  for  whose 
convenience  and  profit  they  are  in  great  measure  created,  are 
properly  put  under  such  restrictions  as  do  not  apply  to  indi- 
viduals. This  policy  is  a  bulwark  for  the  protection  of  the 
people  from  the  dangers  that  arise  from  aggregated  capital 
working  through  great  corporations.  It  is  particularly  im- 
portant in  regard  to  railroads;  for  this  form  of  corporate 
power  seems  inclined  to  grow  from  small  beginnings  to  an 
overshadowing!  and  baleful  prominence  in  our  state  and 
national  politics.  *  *  * 


FROM  THE   RECORD  OF  THE   CONSTITU- 
TIONAL   CONVENTION. 

I.  ACCEPTING  THE   PRESIDENCY  OF  THE   CONVENTION, 
THE  CAPITOL,  FRANKFORT,  SEPTEMBER  8,  1890. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Convention: 

I  am  profoundly  affected  by  my  election,  and  most  cor- 
dially and  gratefully  appreciate  it.  Especially  is  my  appre- 
ciation of  it  enhanced  by  the  fact  that  you  preferred  me  over 
such  worthy  and  distinguished  competitors.  But,  to  be  can- 
did, I  think  you  preferred  me  not  on  account  of  my  own  per- 
sonal merit,  but  because  you  felt  that  in  me  you  found,  along 
with  other  candidates,  one  who  was  in  thorough  sympathy 
with  the  wants  and  needs  of  the  great  mass  of  the  people,  an 
exponent  and  representative  of  them  in  their  just  and  reason- 
able demand  for  proper  protection  against  any  consolidation 
of  power  which  might  unduly  threaten  their  welfare  and  hap- 
piness. And  this  feeling,  which  neither  tolerates  commu- 
nism, agrarianism,  nor  the  least  impairment  of  the  rights  of 
property  on  the  one  hand,  nor  the  unlimited  and  despotic 
control  of  great  public  agencies  on  the  other,  simply 
demands  in  the  spirit  of  American  liberty  equal  rights  and 
protection  to  all.  To  your  wisdom  is  confided  the  duty  of 
drawing  the  line  of  prudence  and  safety;  and  in  drawing  that 
line  let  us  remember  that  the  adequate  protection  of  the  indi- 
vidual in  his  rights  of  life,  liberty  and  property,  not  only  con- 
duces in  the  highest  degree  to  the  prosperity  and  welfare  of 
society,  but  is  the  best  and  most  permanent  foundation  for 
material  prosperity  and  progress.  We  have  met  to  perform 
a  most  important  duty — a  more  important  duty  I  cannot  well 

C  55  ] 


imagine — and  let  us  give  to  that  task  the  very  best  efforts  of 
our  intellects  and  hearts. 

Our  present  constitution  was  adopted  forty  years  ago. 
Since  that  time  wonderful  changes  have  taken  place.  In 
looking  over  those  forty  years  we  find  them  crowded  with 
great  events,  which  shook  the  nation  to  its  center,  and  we  find 
an  era  of  physical  and  material  development  that  has  eclipsed 
all  the  preceding  centuries.  Then  the  railroad  and  tele- 
graph systems  were  pigmies;  now  they  are  giants,  bringing 
into  association  all  the  people  in  the  closest  sort  of  contact. 
Since  then  every  conceivable  implement  of  machinery  to  aid 
production,  transportation  and  manufacture  has  been  in- 
vented. The  useful  system  of  life  insurance,  and  many 
other  contrivances  to  ameliorate  the  condition  of  society  and 
make  more  prosperous  and  happy  the  lot  of  mankind,  have 
been  originated  and  developed.  In  fine,  the  brain  of  our 
people,  stimulated  by  training  and  education,  has  in  every 
department  achieved  the  grandest  triumphs. 

The  question  for  us  to  determine  is  this :  What  new  ad- 
justments in  the  organic  law  are  required  by  these  changed 
conditions  that  we  see  around  us?  While  the  principles  of 
liberty  in  their  essence  do  not  change,  still  it  is  necessary,  as 
society  develops,  as  new  conditions  arise,  that  there  should  be 
adaptation  to  these  conditions.  Now,  I  imagine  that  among 
the  changes  demanded  are,  first,  those  to  adequately  and  fully 
protect  the  individual  in  his  rights  of  life,  liberty  and  prop- 
erty; then,  those  changes  which  are  required  in  the  processes 
of  government  in  order  to  save  expense,  that  your  govern- 
ment may  be  more  convenient  to  you,  that  your  prosperity 
may  be  promoted,  and  that  the  execution  of  the  law  may  be 
more  evenly  and  speedily  procured. 

But  I  will  not  go  into  details  to  tell  you  what  your  wis- 
dom and  experience  at  the  proper  time  will  more  wisely 
determine.  I  imagine  that  various  prohibitions  will  be  im- 
posed upon  the  power  of  the  Legislature;  that  better  and 
simpler  arrangements  of  the  courts  will  be  made;  that  the 

C  56  ] 


purity  of  elections  will  be  better  secured.  Our  mode  of  re- 
vision by  Constitutional  Convention,  making  a  revolution  in 
the  Constitution  possible,  is  certainly  not  as  wise  and  philo- 
sophical a  change  in  the  mode  of  revision  by  which,  while 
we  give  stability  to  the  organic  law,  the  Constitution  will  be 
allowed  to  grow  according  to  the  wants  and  necessities  of  the 
people. 

But  in  all  these  things,  no  doubt,  your  wisdom  and  ex- 
perience will  much  better  decide  than  I  could  indicate.  Let 
us  always  remember,  though,  in  changing  this  Constitution 
that  it  represents  the  centuries  of  the  best  efforts  of  noble  and 
patriotic  minds  to  secure  society  and  liberty  from  communism 
on  the  one  hand  and  from  despotism  on  the  other;  and  let  us 
not  discard  needlessly  any  of  those  time-honored  guarantees 
and  provisions;  and  let  us  remember  all  the  time  that  we  are 
representatives  and  the  servants  of  the  people;  that  to  them 
we  owe  an  undivided  allegiance;  that  to  them  we  owe  the 
very  best  efforts  of  our  minds  and  hearts.  And  may  the 
blessing  of  God  attend  our  work. 

Again,  gentlemen,  thanking  you  for  this  distinction,  I 
appeal  to  you  for  your  aid  and  forbearance  while  conducting 
the  proceedings  of  this  Convention.  I  will  now  allow  the 
Convention  to  proceed  to  business. 


II.     ON  THE  REVISION  CLAUSED 

I  paired  with  the  Delegate  from  Boone  on  yesterday;  and 
as  he  has  spoken  on  this  matter,  I  think  it  is  proper  and  right 
to  keep  up  my  pair,  and  I  will  say  something  on  the  other 
side.  Times  change,  and  we  change  with  them.  Buckle  has 
said  that  statesmanship  consists  in  a  wise  expediency;  that 
the  future  can  much  better,  knowing  its  wants  and  needs, 
provide  for  itself  than  we  can  by  anticipation.  Some  man 

1  Delivered   during  the  debate  on   this   question   March    31,    1891. 

[  57  ] 


has  said  that  the  dictionary  of  a  Nation  gave  its  history — 
commercial,  social  and  political.  That  can  be  said  much  more 
truly  of  the  laws  of  a  nation — the  organic,  statutory  laws.  As 
a  matter  of  course,  the  organic  laws  do  not  change  as  much 
as  the  statutory  laws,  and  should  not;  but  still,  as  society 
develops,  new  dangers  arise,  and  there  is  a  necessity  for  new 
Constitutional  provisions  to  properly  protect  the  rights  of  the 
people  and  restrain  and  regulate  the  growing  or  originating 
dangers.  My  political  philosophy  is,  that  what  is  good  for 
one  era  does  not  necessarily  apply  or  prove  good  for  another 
era.  As  society  evolutes,  and  its  conditions  change,  its  laws 
must  change.  As  a  matter  of  course,  the  organic  laws  are  not 
changed  so  much  as  the  statutory,  but  still  even  they  must 
necessarily  be  modified  or  enlarged  as  time  progresses. 

The  Constitution  is  to  protect  the  rights  and  liberties  of 
the  people,  and  whenever  new  conditions  arise,  by  which 
these  rights  and  liberties  are  affected,  we  should  be  in  posi- 
tion to  change  our  laws  accordingly.  In  this  Constitution  we 
have  put  many  new  things.  The  gentleman  from  Scott  asked 
for  a  bill  of  particulars;  and  I  tell  him  that  neither  he  nor 
any  living  man  can  give  a  bill  of  particulars,  but  that 
time  and  experience  alone  can  give  such  a  bill.  The  philoso- 
phical way  is  for  laws  or  Constitutions  to  grow  slowly,  and 
gradually  to  adapt  themselves  to  the  varying  wants  and  needs 
of  the  community.  Society  grows  and  develops  slowly.  The 
animal  creations  develop  slowly.  Mechanical  ingenuity 
gradually  evolutes  new  productions;  and  you  ought  to  pro- 
vide means  by  which  your  Constitution  may  show  some  ca- 
pacity for  growth  and  development.  How  can  you  do  that 
except  by  an  open  clause,  allowing  fair  chance  for  reasonable 
amendment?  Give  your  people  an  open  clause,  by  which 
they  can  adapt  their  Constitution  to  suit  their  growing  and 
evoluting  wants,  needs  and  necessities.  That  is  the  only  true 
way  of  development.  Now,  I  have  been  over  this  State  a 
good  deal;  and  everywhere  there  is  an  apprehension  that  we 
have  put  into  this  Constitution  a  great  many  experiments; 

[  58  ] 


and  I  find  everywhere  a  public  opinion  that,  unless  we  give 
the  people  the  power  to  save  themselves  from  such  experi- 
ments as  may  not  prove  wise  and  prudent,  they  will  reject 
this  instrument. 

We  have  embodied  many  new  provisions,  and  we  will 
never  have  them  accepted  by  the  people,  and  should  not,  un- 
less at  the  same  time  we  give  them  a  reasonably  open  clause 
by  which,  as  experience  shows  and  necessity  dictates,  they  will 
have  the  power  to  correct  evils  and  mistakes,  either  by  sub- 
traction or  addition.  They  demand  it  of  you.  When  the 
spirit  of  liberty  dies  out  among  the  people,  the  forms  of  law 
amount  to  nothing.  You  may  build  up  the  restrictions, 
thinking  that  you  have  the  wisdom  of  all  ages  to  come,  and 
thinking  in  that  way  that  you  can  protect  the  liberties  of  the 
people;  but  you  cannot  do  it.  The  forms  of  law  amount  to 
nothing,  when  the  vigilance  of  the  people  has  died  out,  when 
the  spirit  of  liberty  has  died  out.  Do  not  distrust  the  people. 
They  are  going  to  take  care  of  their  rights  and  liberties.  I 
am  not  for  an  open  clause  which  makes  it  too  easy,  but  for 
such  a  clause  as  will  enable  the  people  to  adjust  their  Consti- 
tution to  the  evoluting  wants  and  necessities  of  the  future.  I 
tell  you,  upon  the  open  clause  depends  the  fate — I  do  not  ut- 
ter it  as  a  threat — of  this  Constitution.  If  you  give  the  peo- 
ple a  Constitution,  which,  we  admit,  may  have  a  great  many 
mistakes  and  experiments  in  it,  but  at  the  same  time  give  them 
the  power  and  let  them  feel  that  they  have  the  power  to  con- 
trol, shape  and  mould  it  according  to  such  exigencies  as  may 
arise,  I  am  confident  they  will  correct  it  by  means  of  that 
power;  but  if  you  do  not  give  that  power  to  them,  they  will 
vote  down  the  Constitution  by  a  large  majority. 


III.     ON    ELECTION    vs.    APPOINTMENT    OF    RAILROAD 

COMMISSIONERS.1 

I  want  to  say  a  few  words  in  a  conversational  way. 
*  *  *  Gentlemen  who  have  observed  the  struggle  made  by 
the  friends,  as  I  call  them,  of  the  people  in  the  State  of  Ken- 
tucky for  railroad  regulation,  know  that  I  have  been  in  the 
fight  for  six  years,1  and  that  I  have  done  my  best,  what- 
ever that  may  be,  to  properly  regulate  this  great  and  grow- 
ing power  in  behalf  of  the  people,  in  order  that  the  people 
should  not  be  oppressed,  in  order  that  discriminations  and 
exactions  should  not  be  placed  upon  them,  which  may  amount 
to  far  more  in  some  instances  than  State  and  national  taxa- 
tion combined. 

I  consider  this  the  most  important  question  in  our  State 
politics.  Yes,  I  repeat,  I  consider  this  question,  as  to  the 
proper  regulation  of  railroads,  as  the  great  question  of  to-day 
in  our  State  politics;  and  I  consider  it  the  far  greater  prob- 
lem of  the  future.  The  thing  that  most  astonishes  me  in  our 
civilization  is  the  rapid  growth  and  concentration  of  wealth 
in  every  department  of  business.  We  are  a  wonderful  peo- 
ple, and  live  in  a  wonderful  age;  but  the  most  surprising 
thing  is  this  tendency  of  wealth  to  aggregate  and  accumulate 
power,  and  consolidate  and  destroy  competition,  and  prevent 
the  ordinary  man  from  making  a  decent  livelihood;  and  the 
particular  phase  of  that  concentration  that  most  affects  the 
individual  citizen  is  railroad  consolidation.  If  the  railroads 
be  unregulated — and  they  have  been  but  insufficiently  regu- 
lated heretofore — if  they  are  allowed  to  discriminate  as  be- 

1  C.  M.  Clay's  aggressive  fight  against  the  railroad  interest  and  its  illegal 
influence  in  State  politics  was  the  chief  feature  of  his  term  in  the  State  Senate 
1885-88,  and,  in  fact,  a  feature  of  his  whole  legislative  career.  In  a  statement 
issued  during  the  campaign  for  the  nomination  for  Governor  in  1895,  he  says: 
"To-day,  justly  or  unjustly,  no  interest,  in  the  average,  is  more  opposed  to  my 
election  than  that  of  the  railroads.  No  interest  more  antagonized  my  election  to 
the  Presidency  of  the  Constitutional  Convention."  As  further  illustrative  of  this 
position  it  is  said  in  a  separate  card:  "The  greatest  fight  of  my  legislative  career 
was  one  in  the  interest  of  the  people,  and  especially  the  laboring  classes,  in  trying, 
to  the  best  of  my  judgment — for  honest  and  conscientious  men  will  differ  as  to 
the  manner — to  prevent  discriminations  by  railroads  against  our  citizens  and  town. 
1  I  defy  any  man  to  show  that  in  all  my  legislative  career  I  ever  yet  pros- 
tituted my  official  trust  to  further  personal  gain  or  profit." 

[  60  ] 


tween  individuals,  they  can  give  a  monopoly  at  any  point  to 
one  man  or  to  one  firm,  or  to  two  or  three  firms.  If  they  are 
allowed  to  discriminate  as  between  localities,  which  they  have 
been  allowed  to  do,  they  can  build  up  one  community,  and 
absolutely  ruin  another.  They  can  depreciate  the  values  of 
land  in  some  counties  ten  or  fifteen  dollars  an  acre.  They 
can  put  upon  any  people  greater  exactions  and  greater  hard- 
ships than  the  tariff  and  the  State  taxation  combined,  for  the 
whisky  tax  finally  goes  on  the  consumer.2 

On  this  account  I  consider  the  regulation  of  this 
vast  power,  by  which  the  principles  of  republican  liberty 
shall  be  preserved  so  that  the  private  citizen  shall  enjoy  de- 
cent comforts  and  luxuries,  and  in  fine  have  a  right  to  make 
a  decent  livelihood,  more  important  than  any  other  question 
of  State  politics.  In  discussing  the  Constitution  before  the 
people,3  I  always  devoted  three-fourths  of  my  time  to 
the  provisions  in  the  Constitution  which  provided  for  the 
regulation  of  this  great  railroad  power;  and  I  never  said  a 
word  publicly  in  favor  of  appointing  these  Railroad  Commis- 
sioners, but  privately  I  told  all  the  persons  I  conversed  with 
that  this  was  our  greatest  mistake;  and  everywhere  I  met 
with  the  unanimous  opinion  that  it  was,  and  that  the  people 
ought  to  have  the  power  to  elect.  The  people,  by  a  tremen- 
dous majority,4  have  indorsed  these  principles  of  railroad 
regulation.  They  are  aroused  on  this  question.  They  appre- 
ciate the  necessity  for  an  adequate  regulation  in  their  behalf 
of  this  power  that  is  growing  with  such  tremendous  strides, 
a  power  which  is  continually  gaining  strength  by  the  unifying 


"That  is,  the  tax  on  whisky  is  in  the  end  paid  by  the  consumer;  and,  there- 
fore, Kentucky's  contribution  to  the  Internal  Revenue  should  not  be  measured  by 
the  amount  distilled,  which  would  make  the  amount  inordinate,  but  by  the  amount 
consumed  in  the  State. 

*  Referring  to  the  campaign  made  for  the  new  Constitution  during  the  summer 
of  1891.  The  present  speech  was  made  Sept.  15,  1891,  during  the  final  session  of 
the  Convention,  after  the  draft  of  the  Constitution  had  been  ratified  by  popular 
vote  the  preceding  August.  In  this  draft,  Railroad  Commissioners  were  made  ap- 
pointive by  the  Governor;  the  amendment,  proposed  by  Mr.  Clay,  to  make  them 
elective,  was  the  chief  change  adopted  in  the  Constitution  after  the  referendum 
to  the  people. 

4  The  vote  for  the  Constitution  was  212,432;  against,  74,017,  making  the  majority 
for  the  Constitution  139,415.  Tho  new  Constitution  contained  important  changes 
over  the  old  in  the  way  of  proper  railroad  regulation. 

[  61  ] 


of  its  interests  through  the  consolidation  that  is  going  on  in 
every  direction.  They  see  that  the  ordinary  principles  of 
competition  give  them  no  relief;  that  while  they  build  new 
roads,  consolidation  goes  on  faster. 

The  people  have  indorsed  these  principles,  and  in  offering 
my  amendment  for  the  election  of  these  Commissioners  my 
only  desire  was  to  make  more  efficient  that  regulation  which 
the  people  have  indorsed.  The  principle  involved  in  all  this 
is  the  regulation  as  secured  by  five  or  six  provisions  in  this 
Constitution;  and  the  appointment  or  election  of  Commis- 
sioners is  simply  a  means  to  carry  out  that  regulation,  which 
is  necessary  and  the  life  of  the  Constitution  in  that  respect. 
Now,  gentlemen,  we  do  not  want  any  personalities  in  this 
thing.  We  do  not  want  any  passion  or  prejudice.  We  want 
to  look  at  it  from  a  sensible  standpoint,  and  the  only  question 
involved  is  a  question  of  means,  the  importance  of  which  we 
all  acknowledge.  I  confidently  believe  that  in  Bourbon  coun- 
ty, they  consider  the  election  of  a  Railroad  Commissioner 
more  important  than  that  of  a  Governor.  It  is  more  impor- 
tant to  that  people  in  a  substantial  way.  That  county  in  the 
last  thirty  years  has  paid  more  to  the  Kentucky  Central  Rail- 
road in  excess  of  what  a  fair  rate  would  be,  than  it  has  paid 
State  and  National  taxation,  for  the  tax  on  whisky  is  paid  by 
the  consumer.  Therefore,  they  consider  it  a  most  important 
question;  and  do  you  tell  me,  if  these  Commissioners  are 
elected,  the  people  will  not  take  interest  in  the  election?  To 
say  so,  is  to  say  that  an  intelligent  freeman  will  not  protect 
his  own  interest. 

The  only  question  is  whether  this  regulation,  so  essentially 
necessary,  will  be  best  secured  by  appointment  by  the  Gover- 
nor or  election  by  the  people.  In  elections  by  the  people  the 
issue  is  open  and  public.  There  is  a  Convention  in  which  one 
officer  is  named.  There  is  no  complication  of  issues.  There 
is  no  possible  combination  of  various  candidates.  The  inter- 
est of  the  people  is  self-evident;  and  to  tell  me  that  where 
the  matter  is  open  and  public,  where  the  interest  of  the  peo- 

[  62  ] 


pie  is  so  great,  where  there  is  but  one  issue,  where  no  combi- 
nation is  possible,  that  the  people  cannot  protect  their  rights, 
is  to  tell  me  that  republican  government  is  a  failure,  and  that 
there  is  not  enough  virtue  and  manhood  left  in  the  people  to 
preserve  their  institutions. 

Now  how  is  it  on  the  other  hand?  In  a  State  Convention 
there  are  twenty-five  or  more  candidates,  and  the  attention  of 
the  people  is  divided  into  that  many  different  parts;  but  how 
is  the  railroad  power?  The  railroads  are  going  to  try  to 
influence  the  naming  of  Railroad  Commissioners,  because  it 
is  a  matter  of  business  with  them.  These  Commissioners  are 
assessors  of  the  railroad  property;  and  to  effect  their  purpose 
may  be  worth  thousands  of  dollars  a  year  to  the  railroads  in 
this  respect.  Under  the  long  and  short  haul  law  the  Com- 
missioners are  to  prevent  these  unjust  discriminations  between 
localities  so  heavy  on  some  communities  in  the  State.  It  is 
worth  thousands  of  dollars  to  the  railroads  to  secure  a  fav- 
orable Commission. 

In  a  State  Convention  they  have  only  one  object,  and 
they  have  the  most  gifted  managers  in  the  State.  They  have 
the  utmost  concentration  of  purpose.  In  a  State  Convention, 
as  said  by  the  Delegate  from  Fleming,  nobody  would  think 
about  Railroad  Commissioners.  Who  would  have  thought 
about  Railroad  Commissioners  in  any  of  the  late  Conven- 
tions? And  it  will  be  so  in  the  future.  The  attention  of  the 
people  is  divided  between  twenty-five  issues;  but  that  of  the 
railroads  is  concentrated  and  united  with  only  one  intent,  and 
that  is  to  secure  a  favorable  Commission  as  a  matter  of 
business.  Do  you  tell  me  that  thus  working  in  the  dark, 
with  the  attention  of  the  people  directed  to  twenty-five  dif- 
ferent personal  issues,  the  people  will  have  the  same  power 
of  resisting  the  railroad  power  as  they  will  where  there  is  but 
one  office  and  one  issue,  where  the  issue  is  public,  and  where 
this  interest  financially  is  so  great?  To  tell  me  that,  is  to 
deny  all  the  experience  of  humanity,  to  deny  all  the  laws 
which  prevail  in  sociology  as  well  as  in  physics.  If  you  want 

[  63  ] 


a  force  to  penetrate  far,  it  must  be  undivided  and  concen- 
trated, and  the  opposing  force  scattered;  if  you  want  a  force 
to  have  but  little  penetration,  divide  it,  and  the  penetration  is 
lessened  just  in  proportion  to  the  division  of  the  force. 

In  a  State  Convention  the  forces  and  attention  of  the  peo- 
ple are  divided  into  twenty  channels ;  and  the  railroad  forces, 
gaining  strength  with  every  consolidation,  and  with  only  one 
purpose,  and  that  to  make  money  off  of  the  people,  are  united 
and  concentrated ;  and  to  tell  me  that  they  cannot  accomplish 
more  in  a  fight  of  that  kind  than  in  a  fight  where  there  is  but 
a  single  issue,  open  and  aboveboard,  is  to  deny  every  princi- 
ple of  sociology  and  philosophy.  That  is  all  there  is  in  it. 
In  what  way  can  the  people  best  protect  themselves  in  regard 
to  this  great  and  growing  danger,  which  more  threatens  the 
right  of  the  individual  to  make  a  livelihood  than  all  the  other 
dangers  in  our  civilization  ?  I  believe,  in  accordance  with  the 
common  laws  of  force  in  mathematics,  physics,  sociology  and 
common  sense,  that  the  people  can  accomplish  more  when 
their  attention  and  power  is  concentrated,  when  there  is  but 
one  issue,  and  where  combination  is  the  least  possible,  than 
wrhere  their  attention  is  diverted  and  their  forces  divided 
among  numerous  issues,  and  where  the  opposition  is  united 
and  consolidated.  That  is  all  there  is  in  the  question,  and 
when  you  do  decide  that,  you  decide  this  matter.  I  can  state 
it  no  better  way  than  that.  The  whole  question  is,  which 
is  the  better  way  to  carry  out  this  regulation  of  railroads 
which  the  people  have  so  thoroughly  indorsed?  With  this 
presentation  of  this  simple  question,  I  close  my  remarks. 


SPEECH    BEFORE    THE    DEMOCRATIC    STATE 

CONVENTION,  1895,  WHEN  DEFEATED  FOR 

THE  NOMINATION  FOR  GOVERNOR. 

"Mr.  Cassius  M.  Clay,  Jr.,  was  seen  walking  across  the  extreme 
rear  of  the  stage,  and  a  round  of  cheers  forced  him  to  come  forward. 
The  hall  became  so  quiet  that  the  ticking  of  a  telegraph  instrument  in 
a  room  adjoining  the  stage  could  be  heard  distinctly.  Mr.  Clay 
spoke  as  follows." — Clipping  from  the  Louisville  Courier- Journal, 
June  27,  1895. 

Fellow-Democrats  and  Friends: 

Four  years  ago  I  went  down  in  defeat  in  this  same  hall, 
and  I  cheerfully  submitted  to  the  decision.  Again  to-night  I 
go  down  in  defeat  and  I  again  cheerfully  submit  to  the  deci- 
sion and  pledge  my  hearty  and  earnest  support  to  the  nomi- 
nee of  this  convention. 

Parties  cannot  exist  unless  the  minority  submit  to  the  rule 
of  the  majority.  I  think  the  Democratic  party  is  formed  for 
great  purposes,  and  that  any  Democrat  is  unpatriotic  and 
unfaithful  to  his  State,  unfaithful  to  himself,  unfaithful  to 
his  fellow-Democrats,  and  unfaithful  to  the  true  friends  who 
have  stood  by  him,  who  will  not  give  cordial  support  to  the 
party  when  he  is  defeated. 

When  I  started  into  this  canvass,  I  was  opposed  to 
bringing  the  financial  question  into  the  canvass,  and  the  rea- 
son of  that  was  this :  I  felt  that  to  decide  the  question  as  to 
who  should  be  nominated  for  Governor  by  the  Democratic 
party  by  how  he  stood  on  the  financial  question,  ignored 
every  proper  consideration  that  should  enter  into  the  deter- 
mination of  this  question.  I  knew  how  divided  the  party 
was;  and  I  felt  the  aggravation  of  our  differences  could  only 
injure  the  Democratic  party,  and  might  make  probable  the 

[  65  ] 


success  of  the  Republican  party.  Therefore,  in  a  spirit  of 
faithfulness  to  Democratic  rule  in  the  State  of  Kentucky,  I 
earnestly  protested  against  the  lugging  of  that  question  into 
this  canvass,  but  against  my  protest  and  earnest  endeavor  it 
was  lugged  in  and  made  an  issue.  When  I  first  entered  upon 
that  policy,  it  appeared  that  the  wave  in  favor  of  the  free  and 
unlimited  coinage  of  silver  at  a  ratio  of  1 6  to  i  was  irresist- 
able;  but  I  took  my  stand  then,  and  although  that  wave  has 
receded  and  although  the  sentiment  is  now  for  sound  money, 
I  have  adhered  to  that  policy.  Now,  I  want  to  tell  you,  as 
probably  this  is  the  last  time  I  shall  ever  appear  before  the 
people  as  a  candidate,  that  I  am  an  advocate  of  sound  cur- 
rency and  have  always  been  such  an  advocate.  I  thoroughly 
indorse  the  administration  of  Grover  Cleveland  and  Ken- 
tucky's most  distinguished  son,  John  G.  Carlisle,  and  if  to- 
night you  had  adopted  a  free  and  unlimited  coinage  16  to  i 
platform,  I  would  have  refused  to  be  your  nominee,  should  I 
have  been  nominated,  because  I  could  not  have  defended  it. 
We  cannot  afford  to  have  Republican  rule  in  the  State  of 
Kentucky.  The  Republican  party  cannot  give  on  the  average 
as  good  government  to  this  State  as  the  Democratic  party; 
and  why?  Nations  have  just  as  good  government,  no  better 
and  no  worse,  than  they  deserve.  They  will  have  no  better, 
because  there  will  be  no  vigorous  public  sentiment  on  the  part 
of  the  people  to  enforce  it;  and  they  will  have  no  worse,  be- 
cause they  won't  submit  to  it.  The  same  way  with  a  party. 
The  administration  of  a  party  cannot  be  any  better  than  the 
party  itself.  Now,  look  at  the  constituency  of  the  two  par- 
ties. I  will  freely  grant  that  the  average  Republican  white 
voter  is  the  equal  of  the  average  Democratic  white  voter  in 
intelligence,  in  morality  and  in  interest  in  the  welfare  of  the 
State;  but  still,  every  fair-minded  man  must  allow  that  a  large 
proportion  of  the  Republican  vote  is  the  negro  vote,  to  a  very 
considerable  extent  illiterate  and  ignorant,  so  that  the  aver- 
age unit  of  intelligence,  morality  and  interest  in  the  welfare 
of  the  State  in  the  Republican  party  is  below  the  similar  unit 

T  66  ] 


in  the  Democratic  party;  and  as  the  stream  cannot  rise  higher 
than  its  source,  as  party  government  cannot  be  any  better 
than  the  party  itself,  Republican  rule  in  this  State  cannot  on 
the  average  be  as  good  as  the  Democratic. 

This  is  not  only  theory,  but  is  illustrated  in  the  history  of 
all  of  the  carpet-bag  governments  in  the  South,  where  the 
constituency  of  the  two  parties  was  analogous  to  the  constitu- 
ency of  the  two  parties  in  this  State.  It  is  illustrated  in  every 
Republican  county  government  in  the  State  of  Kentucky, 
where  the  constituency  of  the  two  parties  is  analogous  to  the 
constituency  of  the  two  parties  in  this  State.  It  is  illustrated 
everywhere  throughout  the  world  and  history;  and  if  this  is 
so,  if  the  cause  of  Democracy  is  the  cause  of  good  govern- 
ment, then  every  Democrat  who  is  a  patriot  and  feels  like 
doing  his  duty  ought  to  make  an  honest  effort  to  prevent 
Kentucky  from  falling  into  the  hands  of  the  Republican 
party.  So  I  call  on  all  true  Democrats  to  rise  to  an  appre- 
ciation of  the  situation,  to  prepare  for  the  fight  and  to  do 
everything  they  can  to  elect  the  Democratic  State  ticket,  head- 
ed by  Gen.  P.  Wat  Hardin. 

In  conclusion,  let  me  say,  while  having  the  kindest  senti- 
ments for  those  who  have  supported  my  opponent,  I  want  to 
earnestly  and  fervently  thank  the  tried  and  true  friends  who 
have  stood  so  faithfully  and  earnestly  by  me  in  this  canvass. 


THE  LOUISVILLfe  POST'S  SUMMARY  OF  A 
SPEECH  BEFORE  COMMERCIAL  CON- 
VENTION, LOUISVILLE,  1895. 

Mr.  Cassius  M.  Clay's  address  on  agricultural  progress 
was  a  characteristically  able  presentation  of  the  case  of  the 
farmer.  He  emphasized  the  interdependence  of  all  classes  of 
modern  society,  and  then  showed  how,  from  the  very  nature 
of  the  case,  the  farmers,  though  the  most  numerous  class, 
were  so  scattered  that  concert  of  action  was  almost  impossi- 
ble. Then  Mr.  Clay  said: 

"Therefore  of  all  classes,  the  farmer,  most  of  all,  should 
insist  that  his  government  pass  only  equal  and  uniform  laws, 
without  bias  or  favoritism  to  any.  He  should  insist  upon  this, 
because  it  is  just  and  Democratic;  but  also,  if  for  no  other 
reason,  because  in  the  race  for  favoritism  he  will  always  be 
outrun.  In  order  that  his  business  be  burdened  as  little  as 
possible,  taxation  should  be  as  light  as  is  consistent  with  an 
efficient  administration  of  law  and  order;  and  to  effect  this 
he  should  vote  for  honest,  upright  and  well  qualified  men  for 
public  office,  and  to  a  large  extent  men  from  his  own  class. 
And,  by  the  way,  nothing  adds  more  to  bad  and  inefficient 
government  than  to  select  men  for  county,  city  and  State 
offices  by  the  test  of  what  opinions  they  hold  on  some  na- 
tional question.  A  man  might  as  well  select  a  manager  for 
his  farm  by  the  same  test,  and  expect  to  see  his  farm  well 
managed.  While  political  parties  are  necessary  to  give  con- 
cert of  action  and  efficiency  to  men,  holding  substantially  for 
the  time  being  the  same  political  opinions,  still  we  should 
never  forget  that  they  are  but  means  to  certain  ends  of  good 
government,  and  should  be  used  aright;  that  the  ends  should 
never  be  lost  sight  of  for  sake  of  the  means;  and  that  a  blind 

[  69  ] 


partisanship  or  bigotry  is  a  great  evil  and  the  hold,  to  a  great 
extent,  by  which  the  boss  in  cities,  and  the  clique  in  counties 
and  States  perpetuate  their  power  to  the  disadvantage  of  the 
people. 

"Good  rule  in  city,  State  and  even  nation  must  depend 
upon  the  fact  that  the  independent  strength  is  sufficient  to 
hold  the  balance  of  power  between  the  parties  or  partisans 
and  keep  them  upon  good  behavior.  The  farmer  may  be  al- 
ways sure  that  when  other  classes  are  unduly  favored  by  the 
government,  it  is  done  to  a  greater  or  less  extent  at  his  ex- 
pense. It  is  exactly  as  when  any  organ  or  part  of  the  body 
is  unduly  stimulated,  there  is  always  a  subtraction  of  blood 
and  nutriment  from  the  other  parts  of  the  body,  and  finally 
a  detriment  to  the  whole. 

"Let  the  government,  by  wise  and  liberal  laws,  give  en- 
couragement and  healthy  development  to  all  interests,  but  no 
favoritism  to  any,  should  be  the  political  faith  of  every 
farmer." 

Mr.  Clay,  in  a  few  sentences,  stated  the  case  against  the 
trusts  in  a  way  that  must  satisfy  the  men  who  believe  that  the 
best  guide  for  the  future  is  the  experience  of  the  past. 

"These  great  combinations,"  said  Mr.  Clay,  "necessarily 
throw  a  great  many  men  out  of  employment,  and  to  a  more 
or  less  extent  control  the  prices  of  the  raw  material  and  the 
finished  product,  and  in  transportation  also  control  the  freight 
and  passenger  rates.  When  such  raw  material  is  a  product 
of  the  farm,  as  for  instance  tobacco,  cattle,  cotton,  etc.,  these 
combinations  injuriously  affect  the  farmer's  business,  and 
their  judicious  limitation  and  restraint  properly  becomes  a 
question  of  great  importance  to  him. 

"There  is  no  doubt,  since  a  corporation  is  an  artificial  per- 
son and  the  creation  of  the  government,  that  the  government 
can  within  constitutional  limits,  without  any  infringement  of 
equal  rights,  properly  control  and  restrain  it  so  that  it  may 
not  exercise  any  power  inimical  to  the  rights  of  the  masses. 
While  a  certain  amount  of  concentration  of  capital  and  effort 

[  70  ] 


is  an  almost  necessary  concomitant  of  a  high  state  of  material 
development  and  will  naturally  take  place  with  advancing 
civilization,  still  the  great  extent  to  which  it  has  been,  and  is 
being,  carried  looks  ominous  to  the  average  man,  and  threat- 
ens a  real  and  great  danger  to  our  democratic  institutions. 

"Yet,  I  have  not  abundant  faith  in  the  ability  of  our  poli- 
ticians to  properly  handle  this  question.  Men  of  the  best 
knowledge  and  experience  of  such  politico-economic  questions 
are  rarely  elected  to  public  office,  and  a  majority  of  those  who 
are  elected  by  their  radical  and  superficial  expedients,  and 
blatant  appeals  to  popular  prejudice,  will  do  more  harm 
than  good.  For  while  monopoly  is  a  very  great  evil,  anar- 
chy and  communism  are  an  equally  great  one.  All  extremes 
meet,  and  each  in  this  case  will  only  aid  the  other.  From 
monopoly  to  spoliation  and  anarchy,  and  from  spoliation  and 
anarchy  to  monopoly,  through  despotism,  the  step  is  equally 
easy. 

"In  the  meantime  the  government  can  and  ought  to  limit 
and  restrain  their  powers,  when  dangerous,  by  taxation,  or 
repealing  the  tariff  where  it  protects  or  makes  possible  such 
combination,  or  in  any  other  way  consistent  with  the  princi- 
ples of  liberty  and  the  proper  protection  of  the  rights  of 
property.  One  great  difficulty  with  the  governmental  con- 
trol of  this  question  is  the  fact  that  each  of  the  various  States 
can  incorporate  such  companies,  and  that  it  is  practically  im- 
possible to  have  any  uniform  system  of  legislation  in  regard 
to  them." 

As  to  the  relation  of  the  farmer  to  the  farm,  as  to  the 
farmer  himself,  Mr.  Clay  said: 

"No  question  about  farming  can  be  introduced  but  about 
which  the  best  of  farmers  disagree — probably  in  most  cases, 
both  sides  approximately  right  under  their  special  conditions. 
Now  under  these  varying  circumstances,  a  mastery  of  detail 
in  any  particular  case  is  necessary  to  secure  a  reasonable  suc- 
cess. Therefore,  the  successful  farmer  of  the  future  must  be 
a  man  of  observation  and  intelligence,  and  possessed  with  a 

[  71  ] 


proper  zeal  to  keep  up  with  the  best  varieties  of  livestock,  the 
best  kind  of  grains,  forage  plants  and  grasses,  and  also  with 
the  most  improved  methods  of  feeding  stock,  so  that  the 
greatest  profit  shall  come  to  the  products  of  the  farm,  as 
turned  into  beef,  pork  and  mutton.  And  all  this  is  to  be 
done  without  any  deterioration  of  the  land.  In  fact,  success- 
ful farming  demands  a  continual  improvement  of  the  land. 

"In  the  last  forty  or  fifty  years  there  has  been  in  this 
country  a  vast  improvement  in  the  farmers'  methods,  and  the 
consequent  results.  I  have  always  lived  on  a  farm.  When  a 
boy,  our  implements  and  processes  were  most  crude,  compared 
with  those  of  today.  Thus,  for  instance,  we  harvested  grain 
with  a  sickle  or  cradle.  Then  after  awhile  came  the  clumsy 
reaper,  with  one  man  driving  and  another  standing  on  the 
rear  platform  with  a  fork  to  throw  off  the  grain,  a  machine 
badly  constructed  and  continually  getting  out  of  repair.  Next 
in  course  of  evolution  appeared  the  self-dropper.  Then  the 
self-rake,  and  finally,  after  many  changes,  the  almost  perfect 
self-binder.  In  the  handling  of  livestock  a  great  progress 
has  been  realized.  Then,  cattle  being  prepared  for  market 
were  fed  on  corn  alone,  unprotected  in  winter  weather,  ex- 
posed to  the  storms  and  snows.  Now,  in  a  good  many  cases 
under  good  shelter,  they  are  fed  a  judicious  mixture  of  feeds, 
with  much  better  results;  and  the  same  improvement  is  seen 
in  a  great  many  other  respects. 

"In  this  spirit  of  independence  and  self-respect,  in  this 
spirit  of  tolerance  and  consideration,  in  this  spirit  of  investi- 
gation, must  the  farmer  approach  every  social  and  political 
problem." 


IN  EULOGY  OF  HON.  WM.  GOEBEL. 

"In  presenting  the  resolutions,  Hon.  Cassius  M.  Clay  read  the 
following  tribute  to  the  late  Governor  Goebel,  which  on  motion 
was  ordered  to  be  published  in  full  with  the  proceedings  of  the  meet- 
ing."— From  Paris  paper,  February,  igoo,  referring  to  a  Democratic 
mass  meeting  held  at  the  Court  House  in  Paris,  February  5th,  to 
adopt  suitable  resolutions  upon  the  tragic  death  of  Governor  Goebel. 

Permit  me  to  say  a  few,  plain,  blunt  words  in  memory  of 
my  old  friend,  Hon.  William  Goebel.  I  knew  Mr.  Goebel 
intimately  for  years.  First,  as  a  colleague  in  the  Kentucky 
Senate,  working  in  the  main  for  mutual  objects  and  actuated 
by  the  same  political  sentiments  and  motives.  In  the  Consti- 
tutional Convention  we  were  again  associated  together  inti- 
mately, both  personally  and  as  to  common  objects  to  be  se- 
cured as  desirable  and  necessary  in  the  organic  law  for  the 
welfare  and  protection  of  the  people.  Since  then  we  have 
differed  politically  in  some  of  the  great  issues,  and  in  the  last 
few  years  I  have  seldom  met  him.  He  was  my  friend  and  I 
knew  him  well. 

The  words  that  I  shall  now  speak  of  Mr.  Goebel  are  not 
to  be  considered  as  the  fulsome  phrases  of  praise  and  eulogy 
usually  given  a  man  when  dead,  but  my  honest  and  accurate 
analysis  of  his  personal  character  and  public  purposes.  I 
always  found  him  utterly  reliable  and  truthful,  one  of  the 
very  few  men  in  public  life  who  was  absolutely  undaunted  in 
carrying  out  those  measures  that  he  thought  necessary  for  the 
welfare  and  protection  of  the  great  mass  of  the  common  peo- 
ple. No  bribe  of  any  sort,  honor,  or  political  preferment, 
danger,  or  fear  of  personal  consequences,  could  abate  one  jot 
or  tittle  of  that  capacity,  energy  or  action  that  he  had  conse- 
crated to  the  service  of  the  people. 

By  nature  a  radical,  and  eminently  fitted  to  be  a  great 

[  73  ] 


tribune  of  the  people  he,  in  the  fierce  fight  for  the  protection 
of  the  plain  people  against  colossal  corporate  power,  might 
have,  from  a  conservative  standpoint,  committed  some  mis- 
takes or  errors;  but  this  did  not  come  from  any  abating  of 
the  conscience  or  weakening  of  the  moral  force  in  the  man, 
but  from  the  fierceness  and  unscrupulousness  of  the  fight 
made  upon  him,  and  from  his  earnest  and  indomitable  desire 
that  the  people,  whose  cause  he  ardently  believed  he  repre- 
sented, should  prevail. 

A  great  many  of  us  think  that  his  greatest  political  mis- 
take was  the  passage  of  his  election  bill.  But  to  Mr.  Goebel, 
who  had  consecrated  his  energies  and  abilities  to  the  fight  in 
behalf  of  the  protection  of  the  plain  people  against  the  en- 
croachments of  corporate  power,  such  a  bill  seemed  absolutely 
necessary  to  prevent  the  debauching  of  elections  by  the  money 
and  influence  of  the  said  power.  He  felt,  however  mistaken 
he  may  have  been,  that  it  was  a  bulwark  in  defense  of  the 
rights  of  the  people.  This  fight  of  his  to  restrain  the  cor- 
porate power  within  what  he  thought  due  limits,  was  no  new 
fight  with  him,  assumed  for  demagogic  purposes,  but  com- 
menced with  the  first  day  of  his  official  life  and  continued  to 
the  hour  of  his  death. 

I  shall  not  attempt  here  any  estimate  or  analysis  of  his 
intellectual  abilities,  for  by  his  public  acts  and  speeches  such 
estimate  can  be  made  by  the  world.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  they 
were  of  a  very  high  order.  But  amidst  the  mountains  of 
abuse  and  contumely  that  were  heaped  upon  his  personal  and 
moral  character,  and  this  in  a  greater  degree  than  ever  before 
known  on  account  of  the  strong,  selfish  interest  behind  it,  I 
felt  it  my  duty,  being  one  of  the  few  who  really  knew  him 
(and  at  the  best  there  are  very  few  who  so  know  any  man) 
to  give  my  honest  testimony  in  behalf  of  his  moral  purpose 
and  high  and  lofty  integrity. 

To  a  man  who  has  been  somewhat  in  political  life,  among 
the  great  crowd  who  are  influenced  by  paltry  and  selfish  mo- 
tives, fearful  of  their  very  shadows  in  defense  of  principle,  to 

[  74  ] 


a  great  extent  unreliable,  it  is  refreshing  to  meet  men  of  Mr. 
Goebel's  character,  brave,  truthful  and  devoted  to  high  prin- 
ciples and  purposes.  A  very  eminent  lawyer,  a  kind  and  in- 
dulgent brother,  a  reverent  and  obedient  son,  a  staunch 
friend,  a  plain,  simple,  pure  man  in  private  life,  an  undaunted 
and  fearless  tribune  of  the  people,  he  has  died  as  he  earnestly 
believed,  fighting  their  battles,  a  warrior  with  his  harness  on, 
in  the  strength  and  vigor  of  his  manhood. 

"Tell  my  friends  to  be  brave  and  fearless  and  loyal  to  the 
great  common  people,"  were  appropriately  his  last  words. 


SPEECH  ON  THE  TARIFF,  AT  LOUISVILLE, 
NOVEMBER  3,  1894. 

I  am  much  pleased  to  meet  so  many  of  the  intelligent  citi- 
zens of  Louisville  here  tonight,  and  I  am  very  much  com- 
plimented by  your  presence.  Being  a  business  man,  I  pro- 
pose to  speak  to  you  in  a  plain,  conversational  way.  I  wish 
to  make,  in  the  first  place,  a  plea  for  a  more  accurate  and 
conscientious  consideration  of  political  questions. 

When  we  consider  matters  of  private  interest  we  care- 
fully examine  the  facts;  reason  as  accurately  as  we  can;  get 
the  benefit  of  our  own  and  others'  experience;  make  up  our 
conclusions  in  a  safe  and  conservative  manner;  and  all  because 
we  feel  it  so  important  to  us  not  to  be  wrong.  Now,  I  hold 
that  the  questions  of  good  government,  county,  State  and  na- 
tional, are  of  enough  importance  to  justify  and  demand  of  us 
the  same  sort  of  consideration.  If  it  is  as  necessary  to  be  right 
in  regard  to  these  questions,  then  the  obligation  is  upon  us  as 
good  and  patriotic  citizens  to  give  to  these  political  questions 
the  same  conscientious,  accurate  and  prudent  consideration 
that  we  give  to  our  own  individual  affairs.  To  do  any  less  is 
to  neglect  our  duty  as  patriotic  citizens. 

It  is  from  this  standpoint  and  in  this  temper  I  shall  dis- 
cuss public  affairs.  Spencer  has  said  in  substance,  and  truly, 
that  we  decide  public  affairs  too  much  from  an  emotional 
and  impulsive  standpoint,  and  not  enough  from  that  of  rea- 
son and  cool,  discriminating  judgment.  Though  Republicans 
may  so  boastingly  prophesy  and  some  Democrats  may  be  a 
little  dazed  and  discontented,  the  Democratic  party  is  not 
destined  to  die.  Its  platform  is  based  upon  true  political 
economy  and  true  principles  of  human  liberty.  Though  men 
may  come  and  go  and  names  may  change,  that  party  which 

[  77  ] 


embodies  in  its  fundamental  principles,  economy  in  the  admin- 
istration of  the  government;  the  principle  of  the  greatest 
amount  of  local  self-government  consistent  with  necessary 
national  strength  and  integrity  and  equal  rights  under  the  law; 
a  sufficient  currency  of  gold,  silver  and  paper  money  of  con- 
stant value;  free  or  freer  trade;  that  party  is  bound  to  finally 
control  the  destinies  of  this  great  country.  To  suppose  any- 
thing else,  is  to  suppose  the  minds  of  our  people  to  retrograde 
and  civilization  to  decay.  All  the  forces  of  education,  phil- 
osophy and  experience  are  battling  in  our  behalf.  As  they 
increase  in  power,  with  expanding  development,  their  strength 
will  become  overwhelming  and  sweep  out  of  existence  the 
party  based  upon  bigotry  and  selfishness,  or  force  it  to  align 
itself  afresh  upon  ground  more  nearly  our  own.  And  thus  it 
will  be  until  the  victory  of  free  trade  and  true  republican 
liberty  is  completely  won  and  secured. 

Now  let  us  briefly  run  over  the  fundamental  ideas  of  our 
political  faith. 

The  Democratic  party  stands  first  for  economy  in  the 
administration  of  the  Government.  This  comes  necessarily 
from  our  belief  in  the  Government  being  restricted  to  doing 
only  those  things  that  the  Government  should  necessarily  do, 
and  leaving  to  individuals  all  those  things  that  private  enter- 
prise can  better  accomplish.  The  record  of  every  Democratic 
Congress  since  the  war  proves  that  it  is  the  party  of  economy. 
Next,  we  believe  thoroughly  in  the  principle  of  local  self- 
government.  That  is,  that  the  National  Government  should 
only  have  such  powers  as  are  necessary  for  national  integrity 
and  safety,  and  that  the  States  and  people  thereof,  and  the 
communities  and  people  thereof,  should  regulate,  in  as  great 
a  degree  as  possible,  their  own  affairs.  They  better  know 
their  immediate  wants,  and  can  better  provide  for  them,  and 
can  provide  for  them  without  injuriously  affecting  the  local 
interests  of  other  communities. 

Besides,  there  is  a  grand  philosophical  principle  involved. 
Our  theory  is  that  Government  is  created  for  the  benefit  of 

[  78  ] 


the  individual,  and  not  the  individual  for  the  benefit  of  the 
Government;  and  the  greatest  glory  of  any  government  is  a 
manly,  intelligent  and  noble  citizenship.  The  law  of  devel- 
opment is  the  law  of  use.  If  you  would  strengthen  your  mus- 
cles, your  mind,  or  your  moral  qualities  or  any  other  faculties, 
you  must  use  or  exercise  them.  So  when  you  throw  upon  any 
community  the  necessity  of  exercising  all  those  qualities  of 
body,  mind  and  soul  required  for  intelligent  and  self-restrain- 
ing self-government,  your  system  develops  in  the  greatest  de- 
gree possible  those  qualities  that  make  a  people  great.  The 
history  of  the  world  shows  that  those  nations  have  developed 
the  grandest  citizenship  that  have  embodied  in  their  polity 
the  greatest  amount  of  local  self-government.  Surely  we 
Democrats  are  right  in  regard  to  this. 

I  now  propose  to  speak  of  the  tariff  question  and  the 
financial  depression,  its  causes,  and  my  idea  of  the  manner 
of  recovery;  how  much  caused  by  legislation  and  how  much 
by  natural  causes,  as  a  matter  of  course  in  an  approximate 
way.  The  tariff  is  an  old  and  worn  question,  but  still  as  im- 
portant as  ever.  I  shall  discuss  it  mainly  from  a  new  stand- 
point— that  is,  so  far  as  the  stump  is  concerned — and  I  shall 
make  an  argument  about  it,  not  only  on  account  of  the  im- 
portance of  the  great  question  itself,  but  also  as  a  basis  for 
the  explanation  of  the  financial  depression.  The  tariff  ques- 
tion is  generally  discussed  on  the  stump  from  the  standpoint 
of  human  liberty  and  as  violative  of  equal  rights.  It  is  said 
that  when  one  man  is  taxed  directly  or  indirectly  for  the  bene- 
fit of  another,  to  that  extent  his  political  liberty  is  destroyed, 
to  that  extent  he  is  the  slave  of  the  other  man.  This  argu- 
ment is  elaborated  and  illustrated  and  made  a  very  forcible 
appeal  to  the  noble  emotions  and  sense  of  justice  of  men.  It 
is  a  noble  standpoint  from  which  the  orator  may  appeal  to  and 
arouse  the  noblest  enthusiasm  of  honest  men.  But,  after  all, 
the  argument  in  itself  is  not  logically  conclusive  to  the  calm 
thinker.  The  Republican  will  make  this  reply.  Right  here 
let  me  express  the  hope  that  Republicans  are  present.  I  do 

[  79  ] 


not  believe  in  taking  any  advantage  of  Republicans.  The  way 
to  convince  men  is  to  treat  them  fairly,  not  to  mistake  their 
opinions,  or  misrepresent  their  motives.  I  freely  acknowledge 
that  as  individuals  they  are  just  as  honest  and  patriotic  as  we 
are,  and  the  only  difference  between  the  parties  from  my 
standpoint  is  that  our  policy  conduces  in  a  much  higher  de- 
gree to  the  glory,  prosperity  and  true  republican  liberty  of 
our  country.  I  was  saying  that  the  Republican  would  reply 
that  in  the  social  organization  men  are  mutually  to  a  great 
extent  dependent  upon  each  other;  that  one  carries  a  part  of 
his  neighbor's  burdens,  and  his  neighbor  a  part  of  his;  that 
every  appropriation  to  a  harbor,  a  river,  a  public  building  or 
other  object,  involves  a  tax  upon  all,  for  the  benefit  of  a  few; 
and,  although  under  the  tariff  a  man  may  be  indirectly  taxed 
for  the  benefit  of  others,  that  he  receives  compensation  in 
many  ways;  that  he  receives  compensation  through  an  in- 
creased home  market,  through  increased  wages  to  the  labor- 
ing man,  through  an  increased  diversification  of  industries, 
and  in  other  ways ;  and  that  when  the  whole  balance  is  struck, 
the  man  who  is  indirectly  taxed  for  the  advantage  of  others, 
instead  of  being  injured,  is  actually  benefited. 

Thus  the  mind  is  to  a  certain  extent  confused.  But  there 
is  an  argument  that  is  comprehensive,  exhaustive  and  conclu- 
sive. It  is  the  argument  from  the  standpoint  of  political 
economy;  the  argument  which  has  made  all  the  great  histor- 
ians, political  economists  and  thinkers  free  traders;  the  argu- 
ment which  has  influenced  professors  in  all  the  great  North- 
ern colleges  situated  in  the  section  where  the  protective  feel- 
ing is  strongest — Yale,  Harvard,  Williams,  Amherst,  Prince- 
ton, etc.,  teaching  free  trade — the  argument  which  is  turn- 
ing out  yearly  from  those  great  institutions  of  learning  thou- 
sands of  graduates,  well  trained  thinkers,  brave  and  efficient 
soldiers  in  the  battle  for  tariff  reform;  an  argument  that  has 
not  been  answered  and  cannot  be.  For  if  it  were  possible  to 
have  answered  it,  the  billions  of  consolidated  wealth  inter- 
ested in  the  tariff  surely  would  have  had  some  professors 

[  80  ] 


teaching  its  refutation  in  some  of  the  great  colleges  situated 
in  the  manufacturing  East.  It  can  no  more  be  answered  than 
the  proposition  that  two  and  two  make  four.  Well,  what  is 
the  argument?  I  will  give  it  to  you  as  briefly  as  possible. 

Trade  is  more  or  less  mutually  advantageous,  and  the  in- 
centive to  trade  and  the  profit  of  trade  is  the  difference  of 
relative  efficiency  in  producing  the  two  things  exchanged. 
States  and  nations  differ  in  a  thousand  respects;  nations  in 
soil,  climate,  situation,  production  and  otherwise.  Communi- 
ties and  states  differ  in  the  same  way.  Individuals  differ  in 
physical  and  mental  characteristics;  one  man  is  better  adapted 
for  law;  another  for  medicine;  another  for  business,  and  so 
on.  On  account  of  these  differences  in  men,  states  and  nations, 
there  is  necessarily  a  difference  of  relative  efficiency  in  pro- 
ducing various  services  and  commodities.  Now  the  incentive 
to  trade  and  the  profit  of  trade  depend  upon  these  differences; 
and  any  individual,  community  or  nation  will,  in  the  aggre- 
gate, get  the  greatest  amount  of  production  and  wealth  by 
putting  their  labor  and  capital  into  their  most  efficient  chan- 
nels of  business  and  with  the  product  of  their  most  efficient 
labor  and  capital  purchasing  those  other  things  that  they 
need,  but  cannot  so  efficiently  produce.  Let  us  illustrate  this 
principle  mathematically.  Let  A  represent  an  individual, 
community  or  nation,  and  let  B  represent  another  individual, 
community  or  nation.  Now  A,  as  a  matter  of  course,  is  most 
efficient  in  his  own  business,  and  B  in  his  own.  The  lawyer 
is  better  as  a  lawyer  than  a  farmer,  and  the  fanner  better  as  a 
farmer  than  a  lawyer,  and  so  on.  Let  A's  efficiency  in  his 
own  business  be  represented  by  10,  and  B's  in  his  own  busi- 
ness by  10  and  the  efficiency  of  each  in  the  business  of  the 
other  by  5.  This  means  that  each  can  do  as  much  in  his  own 
business  in  say  five  days  as  the  other  working  not  in  his  own 
business  can  do  in  ten  days.  So  that  in  this  case  each  by  con- 
fining himself  to  his  own  business,  by  a  free  exchange,  each 
desiring  of  the  other's  product,  procures  by  five  days'  labor 
what  otherwise  if  he  had  to  produce  himself,  would  require 

[  81  ] 


ten  days'  labor.  So  in  this  case  each  saves  five  days'  labor  for 
the  production  of  additional  wealth.  This  is  the  incentive 
and  profit  of  trade.  Suppose  now,  the  figures  are  ten  and 
six;  still  there  is  a  four  days'  saving  of  labor,  and  four  days 
on  the  part  of  each  measures  the  incentive  to  trade  and  the 
profit  of  trade.  Make  the  figures  ten  and  seven  and  still  there 
is  a  profit  of  three  days  to  each.  Let  the  figures  be  finally  ten 
and  ten  and  all  the  incentive  and  profit  to  trade  disappear, 
and  trade  does  not  take  place.  The  profit  to  each  party  does 
not  necessarily  have  to  be  the  same  as  in  the  illustration 
above,  but  necessarily  there  must  be  more  or  less  profit  to 
each,  or  else  there  is  no  incentive  on  the  part  of  each  to  trade. 
Now,  when  Government  comes  in,  as  between  individuals, 
communities,  or  nations,  for  the  same  principle  applies,  and 
by  a  prohibitory  tax,  protective  system  or  any  manner  of  ob- 
struction, prevents  this  free  exchange  of  the  products  of  the 
most  efficient  labor  and  capital,  or  by  taxing  profitable  indus- 
tries, to  make  profitable  naturally  unprofitable  business,  it  al- 
ways does  so  at  a  loss  of  the  efficiency  of  both  capital  and 
labor.  This  statement  is  mathematical,  logical  and  accurate. 
Spencer  says  in  substance  in  strict  accord  with  this  principle : 
"Governmental  legislation  or  interference  in  commercial  mat- 
ters, except  it  be  the  repeal  of  bad  legislation  or  the  removal 
of  obstruction,  always  does  harm,  and  does  harm  just  in  pro- 
portion to  the  interference  with  the  natural  laws  of  supply 
and  demand."  The  law  of  God  or  nature  brings  about  the 
best  results,  and  the  narrow,  bigoted  and  avaricious  interfer- 
ence of  man  always  does  harm.  This  argument  leaves  not  a 
single  peg  upon  which  to  hang  a  single  shred  of  the  garments 
of  protection.  The  Republican  will  here  say:  "Your  system 
would  place  too  much  labor  and  capital  in  one  or  a  few  busi- 
nesses— would  not  give  us  that  diversification  of  industries 
that  is  necessary  for  the  welfare  and  prosperity  of  the  coun- 
try." 

The  reply  is:  The  law  of  supply  and  demand  will  proper- 
ly distribute  the  labor  and  capital  of  the  country.     Whenever 

[  82  ] 


too  much  labor  and  capital  are  placed  in  one  business,  there 
will  be  overproduction  and  a  fall  in  prices  below  the  cost  of 
production;  and  by  the  force  of  the  law  of  supply  and  demand 
the  surplus  labor  and  capital  will  be  redistributed  into  other 
business,  so  that  the  tendency  will  always  be  to  distribute  the 
labor  and  capital  of  a  country  into  that  diversity  of  industry 
that  is  natural  and  proper,  and  which  in  the  aggregate  will 
give  the  greatest  average  efficiency  to  labor  and  capital,  and 
which  necessarily  will  produce  the  greatest  possible  amount  of 
wealth  and  prosperity.  This  argument  places  protection  in 
its  most  invulnerable  fort  and  destroys  it,  for  you  can  suppose 
that  protection  is  an  ideal  system;  that  it  is  gotten  up  by  hu- 
manitarians and  philanthropists,  who  are  actuated  only  by  a 
sense  of  justice  and  right;  that  the  benefits  and  burdens  are 
equally  distributed  between  all  classes  and  all  sections  of  the 
country;  and  still  the  principles  we  have  elucidated  show  most 
certainly  that  where  there  has  been  any  obstruction  or  prohi- 
bition of  the  free  exchange  of  the  products  of  the  most  effi- 
cient labor  and  capital,  it  is  inevitably  done  at  a  loss  to  the 
parties  involved  and  the  country  in  general.  But  what  are  the 
real  facts  about  the  protective  system  ? 

It  is  a  system  gotten  up  by  greed  and  avarice.  The  strong- 
est interest  can  and  will  elect  the  most  Representatives  and 
Senators.  The  weak  elect  none.  The  legislation  accomplished 
is  the  resultant  of  forces.  The  strongest  forces  in  the  main 
prevail.  The  strongest  interest,  which  needs  least,  gets  the 
most  protection,  and  the  weakest,  which  we  can  reason  by 
sympathy  should  have  most,  gets  least.  One  section,  under 
the  system,  accumulates  \vealth  at  the  expense  of  other  sec- 
tions, one  or  a  few  classes  at  the  expense  of  the  great  consum- 
ing mass.  Massachusetts  and  the  manufacturing  East  accu- 
mulate immense  wealth  at  the  expense  of  the  great  agricul- 
tural West  and  South.  The  highest  principles  of  true  repub- 
lican liberty,  the  equal  rights  of  all  citizens,  are  trodden  under 
foot,  and  all  the  dictates  and  principles  of  sound  political 
economy  and  business  ignored.  Instead  of  intelligence,  big- 

[  83  ] 


otry  and  medievalism  are  blindly  followed.  Instead  of  the 
principles  of  humanity  and  liberality,  the  passions  of  narrow 
exclusion  and  bigoted  selfishness  are  cultivated. 

The  Republicans  depend  mainly  upon  the  side  arguments, 
that  protection  gives  a  better  home  market  and  also  higher 
wages  to  the  laborer.  Let  us  briefly  examine  these  two  points, 
mainly  from  the  standpoint  of  the  argument  we  have  made, 
and  see  how  they  are  completely  answered  by  it.  Home  mar- 
ket, in  the  abstract,  means  power  or  ability  to  buy  and  con- 
sume. Now  what  gives  this  power  in  the  greatest  degree? 
Population  or  wealth?  Prosperity  conduces  to  increase  of 
population,  as  Buckle  clearly  shows.  So  any  policy  that  con- 
duces in  the  highest  degree  to  the  prosperity  of  the  country 
necessarily  makes  the  best  home  market.  Take  the  wages 
question  from  the  same  standpoint.  The  price  of  labor  is  ab- 
solutely controlled  by  the  law  of  supply  and  demand.  The 
richer  a  country,  other  things  being  equal,  the  greater  the 
demand  for  labor;  for  the  capital  of  a  country  constitutes  the 
wages  fund  and  the  greater  the  fund,  other  things  being  equal, 
the  greater  the  demand  for  labor,  and  the  higher  the  price. 
Take  the  countries  of  Europe  where  conditions  are  the  same, 
and  you  will  find  this  rule  absolutely  true.  So  if  the  policy  of 
free  trade  is  best  for  the  development  of  the  wealth  of  the 
country,  it  will  necessarily  create  the  best  demand  for  labor; 
especially  when  we  consider  that  it  is  a  policy  which  favors  a 
more  just  and  equal  distribution  of  wealth  and  is  most  antago- 
nistic to  combines,  monopolies  and  trusts.  While  we  are  on 
the  labor  question  let  us  add  one  or  two  more  considerations. 
Labor  will  be  high,  where  it  is  scarce,  and  low,  where  it  is 
plentiful.  The  manufacturer,  while  reaping  his  certain  re- 
ward from  protection,  never  gives  his  laborers  what  he  can 
afford  to  give,  but  only  what  he  is  forced  to  give  under  the 
law  of  supply  and  demand  in  the  open  market.  The  laborer 
in  a  few  instances  may  get  a  small  increase  in  value  of  wages, 
but  he  may  be  sure  that  in  every  case  he  pays  far  more  in  the 
way  of  burdens  placed  upon  him  by  protection.  Of  all  sys- 

[  84  ] 


terns  of  taxation  the  protective  especially  discriminates  against 
the  laboring  man.  The  tariff  is  a  tax  upon  consumption.  The 
laboring  man  consumes  pretty  much  all  that  he  makes,  the 
rich  man  but  a  small  part  of  his  income;  so  that  the  system 
relatively  discriminates  against  the  laboring  man.  Finally, 
the  advocates  of  protection  claim  that,  because  the  country 
has  prospered  under  the  protective  system,  therefore  protec- 
tion is  right. 

I  have  seen  young  men  who  had  good  constitutions  grow 
up  to  vigorous  manhood  in  violation  of  every  law  of  hygiene 
and  health.  This  young  and  vigorous  country  with  its  im- 
mense natural  resources,  with  its  intelligent  and  indomitable 
population,  could  not  be  kept  from  a  great  development  by 
any  policy,  however  bad;  and  you  might  as  justly  claim  that 
the  young  men  mentioned  above  owed  their  vigorous  man- 
hood to  the  violation  of  every  law  of  health,  and  not  to  their 
innate  constitutions,  as  to  claim  that  this  country  owes  its 
great  development  to  the  protective  system  and  not  to  its 
great  natural  advantages,  and  noble  and  indomitable  people. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  decade  of  1850-60  under  a  low  tariff 
shows  the  greatest  percentage  of  increase  of  wealth  of  any 
decade  of  our  history. 

Let  us  now  examine  into  the  causes  and  responsibilities  of 
the  financial  depression.  The  diagnosis  of  every  financial 
panic  or  depression,  with  some  modifications,  is  about  the 
same.  The  great  political  economists  in  their  analysis  of  the 
previous  panics  all  show  this.  A  financial  crisis  has  its  symp- 
toms like  consumption,  pneumonia  or  small-pox.  First,  on  ac- 
count of  the  emotional  and  speculative  nature  of  men,  there 
is  booming  of  prices  and  expansion  of  values  in  one  or  more 
directions.  Values  are  controlled  by  the  law  of  supply  and 
demand,  and  when  the  pendulum  of  value  is  swung  too  far 
back  to  one  side,  it  inevitably  must  swing  back  as  far  to  the 
other  side,  before  coming  to  its  true  point  of  rest.  Capital  is 
diverted  from  its  legitimate  channels  of  business  into  these 
boom  channels.  When  the  reaction  comes,  men  try  to  hold 

[  85  ] 


on  to  their  boom  property  as  long  as  they  can;  they  boom 
money  at  high  rates  of  interest  and  make  a  stringent  money 
market,  but  finally  have  to  sell  out  at  a  great  loss.  Capital  is 
lost.  When  one  man  is  hurt  financially,  every  man  who  buys 
of  him  or  sells  to  him  is  more  or  less  injured.  For  trade  is 
mutually  advantageous,  and  the  prosperity  of  our  neighbors 
is  our  prosperity  and  their  adversity  adds  to  ours.  Men  are 
emotional.  We  give  confidence  by  our  confidence,  and  by 
our  distrust  we  give  distrust,  to  those  with  whom  we  are  as- 
sociated. Finally,  the  crash  comes,  capital  is  wrecked,  con- 
fidence is  lost  and  we  have  the  financial  panic.  How  was  it 
with  the  present  depression?  It  commenced  by  an  over- 
straining of  values  in  the  Argentine  Republic.  When  the  re- 
action came,  capital  and  confidence  were  lost.  The  great 
English  firm  of  Baring  Bros,  was  involved  in  the  catastro- 
phe. Then  Australia  showed  the  same  symptoms,  and  their 
banks  suspended  to  the  extent  of  two  hundred  millions  of  dol- 
lars, involving  in  their  calamity  their  commercial  correspond- 
ents, the  London  bankers.  The  depression  and  financial 
stringency  next  appeared  in  Continental  Europe,  France,  Ger- 
many, Italy,  etc.  Then  America  became  involved,  not  only 
by  commercial  connection  with  these  countries,  but  also  on  ac- 
count of  some  special  forces  of  her  own.  The  commercial 
world  is  now  so  closely  connected  together  by  cheap  transpor- 
tation, railroads,  steamships,  telegraphs,  bills  of  exchange 
and  all  the  various  modes  of  clearances,  that  any  impulse 
given  to  any  part  of  it  is  felt  throughout  all  other  parts  of  it. 
Now  in  the  United  States,  besides  the  effects  of  our  commer- 
cial connection  with  the  balance  of  the  world,  already  affected 
by  the  depression,  we  had  the  booming  of  certain  properties 
far  beyond  their  real  values;  the  bad  effect  of  the  Sherman 
silver-purchasing  act,  a  Republican  measure;  and  the  accumu- 
lated bad  effects  of  the  vicious  tariff  system,  by  which  wealth 
had  been  unequally  distributed  and  certain  industries  unduly 
stimulated  and  overproduction,  so  far  as  the  home  market  is 
concerned,  produced.  Such  overproduction  on  account  of  the 

[  86  ] 


tariff  was  created  upon  so  high  a  rate  of  artificial  cost  that 
foreign  exportation  was  impossible  and  employees  were  neces- 
sarily thrown  out  of  employment,  until  the  home  market 
could  consume  the  surplus. 

The  situation  in  Europe  today  is  as  bad  as  in  this  coun- 
try; forty-five  cents  for  wheat  with  cheap  transportation 
means  much  more  of  disaster  to  the  English  than  to  the 
American  farmer.  There  they  have  artificial  manures  to 
buy  and  very  high-priced  lands,  and  the  cost  of  production  of 
agricultural  products  is  necessarily  much  higher  with  them 
than  with  us.  I  saw  in  a  reputable  newspaper  some  time 
since  an  account  stating  that  a  farm  in  England,  which  fifty 
or  sixty  years  ago  had  rented  for  2,100  pounds,  had  lately 
rented  for  one  pound,  the  tenant  in  each  case  paying  the 
taxes.  The  same  state  of  affairs  exists  in  the  other  European 
countries,  so  that  the  depression  has  and  does  extend  to  a 
greater  or  less  extent  throughout  the  commercial  world. 
What  is  the  situation  in  this  country  ?  We  are  a  great  agri- 
cultural country  with  an  immense  surplus  of  agricultural 
products  to  export,  and  this  surplus  will  yearly  become  great- 
er. Now  every  business  man  knows  that  in  the  main  the  price 
we  get  for  the  surplus  controls  the  price  we  get  for  the  same 
articles  sold  at  home.  The  price  for  cotton,  wheat,  etc.,  is 
controlled  by  the  price  we  get  for  the  surplus  of  these  articles 
exported.  If  we  exported  none  of  this  great  surplus,  prices 
would  go  to  the  very  lowest  figures. 

The  only  way  to  get  a  better  price  for  a  commodity,  the 
supply  being  given,  is  to  increase  the  demand.  All  the  legis- 
lation in  the  world  cannot  raise  values,  except  so  far  as  it  may 
affect  the  supply  or  demand.  All  the  legislation  of  all  the 
parliaments  in  existence,  declaring  that  the  Ohio  River  shall 
flow  up  stream,  will  not  make  it  do  so,  for  it  will  obey  only 
God's  law,  the  law  of  gravity,  and  flow  down  stream;  and  so 
in  regard  to  values,  the  only  way  to  make  a  commodity  more 
valuable  is  either  to  make  it  scarcer,  or  to  make  a  greater  de- 
mand for  it.  The  situation  of  America  today  is  that  it  has  a 

[  87  ] 


large  surplus  mainly  of  agricultural  products  to  sell  abroad. 
Interests  in  this  country  are  so  connected  together  that  all 
other  businesses  necessarily  languish  unless  those  interests 
represented  by  this  great  surplus  flourish.  The  only  way  to 
get  a  better  price  for  this  great  surplus  is  by  having  our 
European  friends  in  better  financial  condition  and  by  having 
a  better  and  wider  foreign  demand.  Trade  is  mutually  ad- 
vantageous and  Europe  must  be  in  condition  to  take  our  sur- 
plus at  remunerative  prices. 

Now  let  us  speak  of  the  responsibilities  of  the  two  par- 
ties for  the  present  and  past  condition  of  the  country.  In  the 
first  place,  how  could  Cleveland  or  the  Democratic  party 
make  a  better  demand  in  England  and  Europe  for  cotton, 
wheat,  tobacco,  etc.  ?  Upon  the  prices  of  these  products  as  I 
have  shown  you,  our  whole  commercial  prosperity  mainly  de- 
pends. What  acts  have  they  committed  that  have  injured 
these  prices?  On  the  other  hand,  what  has  been  the  responsi- 
bility of  the  Republican  party?  I  am  trying  to  bring  it  down 
to  a  mathematical  and  business  basis.  In  the  first  place, 
they  aggravated  the  situation  by  the  passage  of  the  Sherman 
silver-purchasing  act,  wrhich  was  draining  the  country  of 
gold  and  impairing  European  confidence  in  the  stability  of 
our  monetary  system.  In  the  second  place,  the  ill  effects 
of  the  tariff  system,  in  its  unjust  and  unequal  distribution 
of  wealth  and  its  overstimulation  of  certain  industries, 
and  its  formation  of  trusts  and  monopolies,  had  put  the 
country  in  bad  condition  to  stand  financial  strain.  Finally, 
as  I  have  before  shown  you,  as  the  only  way  to  in- 
crease value  is  to  increase  demand,  the  whole  effect  of 
the  protective  policy  was  to  lessen  foreign  demand  for  our 
surplus,  and  to  diminish  and  curtail  our  markets,  when, 
to  broaden  and  widen  them  was  our  only  hope  to  get  better 
prices  during  our  financial  strain.  Love  begets  love,  hate 
begets  hate,  and  as  we  treat  others  so  will  they  treat  us. 
The  Republicans,  by  their  policy  of  exclusion  against  the  pro- 
ductions of  other  nations,  had  by  this  fundamental  law  of  hu- 

[  88  ] 


man  nature  built  up  Chinese  walls  of  exclusion  of  our  prod- 
ucts on  the  part  of  Germany,  France,  Italy  and  Spain.1  They 
had  even  forced  upon  England,  the  country  which  takes  the 
greater  part  of  our  exports,  the  necessity  of  building  up,  as 
far  as  she  could,  competitive  markets,  with  our  agricultural 
exports,  in  Australia,  Africa,  South  America  and  India. 
When  the  crisis  came  and  we  could  only  increase  prices  by  a 
greater  demand  for  our  immense  surplus,  the  effect  of  the 
Republican  policy  was  to  cut  us  off  effectually  from  any  such 
recovery.  How  can  patriotic,  thinking  men  be  Republicans? 
The  Republicans  seem  to  think  we  can  thrive  best  by 
cheating  our  neighbors,  or  at  least  by  having  nothing  to  do 
with  them.  Our  belief  is  broad,  Christian-like  and  humani- 
tarian; that  trade  is  mutually  advantageous;  that  we  prosper 
in  the  prosperity  of  our  neighbors,  and  are  damaged  by  their 
adversity.  How  shall  the  commercial  recovery  come?  From 
a  hundred  different  factors;  for  instance  to  take  one,  the  Wil- 
son Tariff  bill  has  passed.  It  will  give,  and  has  given,  cer- 
tainty to  the  future  of  the  manufacturer,  and  he  will  employ 
his  full  complement  of  men.  These  men  receiving  wages 
will  buy  food,  raiment  and  other  necessities  and  comforts. 
This  will  stimulate  each  of  these  industries  and  those  indus- 
tries, being  stimulated,  will  stimulate  all  other  connecting  in- 
dustries. Foreign  trade  or  importation  will  be  increased,  and 
foreign  demand  for  our  products  (the  foreigners  being  in 
better  condition)  will  be  stimulated,  and  thus  from  many 
sources,  each  impetus  of  advantage  strengthening  the  other, 
these  streamlets  finally  running  together  will  create  the  broad 
river  of  normal  prosperity.  Confidence  at  the  same  time  will 
grow  in  the  same  way.  Now  in  regard  to  the  tariff  bill,  I  am 
glad  that  it  was  passed.  I,  among  others,  wished  a  more 

1  To  partially  obviate  these  conditions  reciprocity  is  to  be  favored.  In  a  later 
article  on  the  Tariff,  Mr.  Clay  says  (speaking  of  the  principles  of  free-trade): 
"There  is  one  difficulty  in  the  way  of  the  application  of  these  true  economic  prin- 
ciples— a  difficulty  produced  very  likely  to  a  great  extent  by  our  example — I  speak 
of  the  fact  that  so  many  nations  have  established  high  protective  tariffs,  so  as  to 
prevent  us  from  getting  full  benefit  of  the  right  policies  in  this  regard.  Here  is 
where  the  principle  of  reciprocity  comes  in  and  is  to  be  approved,  as  a  means  of 
gradually  removing  these  foreign  obstructions  to  the  full  action  of  a  right  economic 
system." 

C  89  ] 


radical  bill,  but  under  all  the  circumstances,  it  was  the  best 
attainable.  For  various  reasons  I  am  glad  that  it  was  passed. 
In  the  first  place,  the  financial  reaction  to  better  times  was 
bound  to  come.  If  it  had  come  with  the  McKinley  Bill  on 
the  statute  books,  the  Republicans  would  have  said:  "I  told 
you  so ;  just  as  soon  as  you  Democrats  quit  meddling  with  the 
tariff  prosperity  returned."  It  completely  answers  this  mis- 
erable demagogism.  In  the  next  place,  after  we  had  carried 
the  country  on  a  platform  of  tariff  reform,  the  Senate,  the 
House  of  Representatives  and  the  presidency  all  being  Demo- 
cratic, had  we  failed  to  do  anything  in  the  way  of  tariff  re- 
form, the  charge  would  have  been  hurled  at  us  on  every  stump 
that  the  Democratic  party  had  no  administrative  efficiency; 
that  we  had  no  business  sense;  that  we  were  unworthy  of  the 
confidence  of  a  patriotic  and  business  people.  What  answer 
could  we  have  made  ?  Again,  the  bill  was  a  step  in  the  right 
direction,  and  in  the  fight  against  the  power  of  great  consoli- 
dated wealth  the  first  step  is  very  often  the  hardest  to  take. 
It  was  a  step  in  the  direction  of  getting  a  better  reward  for 
our  capital  and  labor;  a  step  toward  broader  and  wider  mar- 
kets; a  step  toward  greater  manufacturing  production, 
greater  commerce,  and  last  though  not  least  toward  true 
Democratic  liberty  and  toward  more  equal  rights  of  every 
citizen  under  the  law. 

The  Republican  may  say  that  Democratic  agitation  of  the 
tariff  question  added  materially  in  bringing  on  the  financial 
depression.  How  could  that  agitation  materially  affect  the 
prices  of  wheat,  cotton,  cattle  and  tobacco  in  Europe,  upon 
which  our  home  prices  depended?  But  be  the  results  of  that 
agitation  what  they  may,  who  is  responsible  for  the  results  ?2 
If  I  rob  you,  and  you  agitate  for  the  recovery  of  the  stolen 
goods  and  for  preventing  a  recurrence  of  the  theft,  who  is  re- 
sponsible for  the  results  of  that  agitation:  I  who  committed 
the  wrong,  or  you  who  only  demand  your  rights  ? 

1  Elsewhere,  in  the  article  quoted  in  Note  1,  it  is  admitted:  "Any  sudden 
radical  change  of  the  Tariff,  with  business  adjusted  to  the  present  high  rates,  would 
no  doubt  bring  on  serious  financial  depression,  but  this  should  not  deter  us  from 
honest  effort  to  gradually  get  clear  of  this  pernicious  system." 

[  90  ] 


So  long  as  our  citizens  are  brave,  manly  and  intelligent 
enough  to  know  their  rights,  they  will  demand  the  redressing 
of  wrong  and  injustice.  The  only  way  to  ever  stop  the  agita- 
tion is  to  right  their  wrongs.  All  the  results  of  the  agitation 
are  to  be  justly  chargeable  to  those  who  perpetrate  and  con- 
tinue the  injustice,  and  not  to  those  who  only  demand  their 
just  and  equal  rights. 

The  record  of  the  Democrats  in  the  last  Congress  is  a 
very  commendable  one.  Though  opposed  by  great  obstacles, 
they  accomplished  much  good.  They  repealed  the  odious 
Force  Bill,  and  so  made  elections  free  from  Federal  interfer- 
ence. They  materially  cut  down  expenses.  They  repealed 
the  Sherman  act  which  materially  threatened  the  business  in- 
terests of  the  country,  and  did  no  good  to  the  cause  of  silver. 
Finally  they  made  considerable  progress  in  the  great  cause  of 
tariff  reform,  and,  by  the  income  tax,  they  placed  upon  those 
able  to  bear  the  tax  some  compensation  for  the  discriminating 
burdens  placed  upon  labor  and  agriculture. 

To  carry  out  the  great  principles  about  which  we  have 
been  speaking,  men  are  required.  You  have  nominated  for 
Congress  a  man  in  every  way  worthy  to  be  your  representa- 
tive, able,  honest  and  well  trained  for  business.  You  have 
nominated  worthy  and  well-qualified  men  for  your  county, 
city  and  district  offices.  You  certainly  can  have  no  objections 
to  any  of  them  personally.  But  I  do  not  ask  you  to  support 
them  on  these  personal  grounds,  although  they  are  in  every 
way  worthy  of  it,  but  I  appeal  to  you  from  a  higher  plane, 
from  a  more  exalted  standpoint.  If  you  are  a  true  Democrat 
or  patriot,  if  you  really  believe  that  the  great  Democratic 
principles  conduce  in  the  highest  degree  to  the  welfare,  pros- 
perity, happiness  and  liberty  of  your  people,  then  as  a  patri- 
otic and  duty-performing  man  you  owe  it  to  yourself  in  every 
moral  fiber  of  your  conscience,  you  owe  it  to  your  family,  to 
your  neighbors,  your  State  and  Nation,  to  give  the  represen- 
tatives of  these  great  Democratic  principles  an  earnest  and 
vigorous  support. 

C  91  ] 


SPEECH  IN  FAVOR  OF  SOUND  MONEY,  PARIS, 

1896,  A  REPLY  TO  SENATOR  STONE  OF 

MISSOURI.1 

I  appear  before  you  to-night  as  a  man  who  personally  is 
out  of  politics.  I  have  made  my  last  race  for  a  political  of- 
fice, and  hereafter  I  propose  only  to  perform  the  duties  of  a 
private  citizen.  My  motive  to-night  is  solely  to  do  my  duty 
to  my  state  and  country.  To  the  people  of  my  county,  who 
have  cordially  supported  me  in  the  past,  I  am  profoundly 
grateful,  and  to  some  of  them  it  may  seem  proper  that  I 
should  not  be  here  to-night;  but  when  the  passions  of  the 
hour  have  passed,  I  am  sure  that  I  will  have  better  earned 
their  respect  by  being  true  to  my  own  earnest  convictions.  I 
believe  the  political  crisis  is  the  greatest  since  1860.  I  be- 
lieve our  nation  and  its  institutions,  in  fine,  our  civilization, 
are  more  on  trial  now  than  probably  at  any  other  period  since 
1776.  My  personal,  selfish  interests  are  more  on  the  side  of 
Bryan;  for  I  belong  strictly  to  the  debtor  class — I  owe  oth- 
ers, no  one  owes  me  money.  My  property  is  in  land,  whose 
real  value  will  be  but  little  affected  by  either  of  the  financial 
policies  advocated  before  the  people.  This  much  permit  me 
to  say  in  the  way  of  a  personal  explanation. 

I  shall  discuss  to-night  the  financial  question  almost 
wholly,  and  without  personalities;  for  certainly  the  impor- 
tance of  the  question  is  worthy  of  such  treatment.  Our  Free 
Silver  friends  seem  to  think  the  way  to  discuss  the  financial 
question  is  to  indulge  in  abusive  personalities.  They  evi- 


1  The   following  note  was   written   beneath  the  list   of   articles  left  for   publication: 
"Probably   the  best   speech    I    ever   made  was  at   Paris  in    1896   against    Bryan   in   favor 
of    sound    money, 
best  and  me 

Unfortunately    the    manuscript    referred      to    was    the    only      copy    of    the    speech    pre 
served    and    available    for    publication. 


the   nest   speech    1    ever   made  was  at   Paris  in    1896   against    Bryan    in    favor 
money.      The    manuscript    speech    in    my    papers    leaves    out    some    of    the 
lost  pungent  points,  made  principally   in  answer  to   Sen.   Stone  of  Missouri." 
ed      to    wa 

C  93  ] 


dently  bear  in  mind  the  advice  of  the  law  professor,  who  in 
his  parting  address  to  his  pupils  said :  "Young  men,  you  must 
recollect  that  when  you  have  a  good  case  you  must  stick  to 
the  law  and  the  evidence;  but  when  you  have  a  bad  cause  to 
support,  you  must  abuse  the  other  fellows  as  much  as  possi- 
ble, and  in  this  way  make  a  division." 

The  issue  is,  shall  we  depart  from  the  present  standard 
of  value,  that  is  the  present  system  with  gold  as  the  standard 
of  value,  with  a  limited  coinage  of  over  four  hundred  mil- 
lions of  silver  dollars  and  an  extensive  issue  of  paper  money, 
all  held  equal  to  gold,  and  indulge  in  the  unknown  results  of 
the  unlimited  coinage  of  silver  at  the  ratio  of  16  to  I  when 
the  commercial  value  of  silver  is  about  32  to  i. 

Let  us  for  a  moment  inquire  what  should  be  the  qualities 
of  the  standard  of  value.  The  philosophic  and  honest  cur- 
rency is  one  that  remains  as  constant  in  value  as  possible. 
Money,  like  all  other  commodities,  varies  in  value  according 
to  the  law  of  supply  and  demand.  A  currency  that  depreci- 
ates in  value  hurts  the  creditor  class;  morally  impairs  the  ob- 
ligation of  contracts;  increases  speculation;  temporarily 
booms  prices;  and  finally  brings  on  its  natural  reaction,  finan- 
cial depression.  On  the  other  hand,  a  currency  that  unduly 
rises  in  value  hurts  the  debtor  class;  equally  impairs  the  obli- 
gation of  contracts;  lowers  prices;  checks  enterprise  and  de- 
velopment; and  has  a  chilling  and  depressing  influence  on 
business.  The  currency,  or  standard  that  remains  constant 
in  value  hurts  no  one;  gives  confidence  to  business;  and  con- 
tributes in  the  greatest  degree  to  prevent  panics  and  to  de- 
velop and  increase  the  wealth  and  prosperity  of  the  country. 

So  it  is  always  the  highest  wisdom  to  adopt  that  standard 
of  value  which  varies  least  in  the  course  of  time.  The  gold 
standard,  as  we  have  it  at  present,  with  a  plentiful  but  lim- 
ited coinage  of  silver,  and  with  a  sufficient  issue  of  paper 
money,  all  based  on  and  equal  to  gold,  is  in  my  opinion  the 
best  attainable  financial  system.  To  leave  this  system,  to  go 
to  the  results  that  would  be  brought  by  the  free  and  unlim- 

[  94  ] 


ited  coinage  of  silver  at  the  ratio  of   16  to    i,  would  be 
ruinous. 

I  freely  confess  that,  were  I  to  believe  that  the  free  coin- 
age of  silver  at  the  ratio  of  16  to  i  would  appreciate  the 
value  of  the  silver  dollar  up  to  and  equal  to  the  gold  dollar, 
I  would  earnestly  advocate  that  policy.  It  is  because — and 
this  is  the  whole  gist  of  the  matter — that  I  most  earnestly 
believe  it  would  not,  but  would  fall  far  short  of  such  a  mark, 
that  I  think  such  coinage  would  be  ruinous  and  disastrous  in 
many  ways  to  the  country. 

No  honest  man,  I  take  it,  would  want  to  change  suddenly 
the  standard  of  value  fifty,  twenty-five,  or  any  large  appre- 
ciable per  cent.  For  such  change  would  imply  the  impairing 
the  obligation  of  contracts  to  an  incredible  extent,  both  on 
the  part  of  the  government  and  on  the  part  of  the  private 
citizen,  a  bad  breach  of  national  faith  and  loss  of  credit,  and 
incalculable  loss  to  masses  of  individuals  and,  especially  to 
laborers. 

It  is  difficult  to  fully  state  the  whole  disaster  to  our  peo- 
ple, both  physical  and  moral,  of  such  a  result.  So,  if  I  can 
pretty  well  establish  that  the  free  coinage  of  silver  would 
largely  depreciate  the  standard  of  value,  I  utterly  condemn 
such  policy  in  the  eyes  of  honest  and  patriotic  citizens.  In 
fact,  as  the  Bryanites  propose  the  experiment,  the  burden  of 
proof  is  really  on  them  to  prove  that  such  depreciation  would 
not  be  its  result. 

Under  the  free  and  unlimited  coinage  of  the  two  metals, 
or  the  free  issuance  of  paper  money,  the  Gresham  law,  which 
is  based  on  eternal  principles  of  human  nature,  prevails. 
This  law  is  that  the  cheaper  metal  or  dollar,  when  the  supply 
is  unlimited  and  both  are  legal  tender,  drives  out  of  circula- 
tion the  dearer.  Men  will  pay  their  debts  as  cheaply  as  they 
legally  can,  and  so,  will  not  use  the  dearer  dollar  as  long  as 
they  can  obtain  the  cheaper.  This  law  has  been  so  often 
explained  and  illustrated  that  I  will  not  further  elucidate  it. 
The  history  of  every  country  in  various  instances  illustrates 

[  95  ] 


and  proves  it.  The  reason  why  all  our  present  money  circu- 
lates concurrently  is  that  the  action  of  Secretary  Carlisle  and 
the  credit  of  the  government  keep  each  and  every  form  of 
currency  equal  to  gold.  This  could  only  take  place  under  a 
limited  issuance  of  paper  money  and  a  limited  coinage  of  sil- 
ver. Even  under  the  present  conditions  the  strain  upon  the 
Treasury  is  great,  and  our  currency  laws  need  some  amend- 
ment by  which  such  strain  would  be  removed  from  the 
government. 

Bryan  proposes  that  the  government  should  freely  coin, 
without  charge,  all  silver  bullion,  brought  to  the  Treasury, 
into  silver  dollars  at  the  ratio  of  16  ounces  of  silver  to  one  of 
gold,  when  their  commercial  value  varies  at  the  ratio  of  32 
to  i,  for  the  sole  benefit  of  the  holder  of  such  bullion.  He 
claims  that  the  mere  fact  of  such  coinage  being  afforded  to 
the  bullion  holders  will  raise  the  value  of  silver  100  per  cent. 
If  it  does  not,  no  gold  will  be  used  in  the  United  States;  for 
if  the  gold  bullion  in  a  dollar  be  worth  more  than  the  silver 
bullion  in  a  dollar,  gold  bullion,  instead  of  being  coined  into 
money,  will  be  used  to  buy  silver  bullion,  since  this  will  make 
more  dollars  than  the  gold  itself  would  have  afforded  by  its 
coinage.  To  assume  the  contrary  would  be  to  suppose  that 
men  act  without  any  business  sense  or  shrewdness. 

Now,  I  admit,  if  the  government  should  indulge  in  the 
free  silver  experiment  and  should  at  the  same  time  promise — 
and  had  the  ability  to  carry  out  such  promise,  which  it  has 
not — to  redeem  on  demand  every  such  silver  dollar  by  a  gold 
dollar,  then,  as  long  as  the  government  had  the  ability  to 
carry  out  this  promise,  each  one  of  the  silver  dollars  would 
be  equal  in  value  to  a  gold  dollar. 

Bryan,  however,  proposes  no  such  thing.  He  only  pro- 
poses that  the  government  should  put  its  stamp  on  silver 
bullion  that  is  now  worth  about  50  cents,  call  it  a  dollar,  and 
make  it  legal  tender  for  debts.  At  no  time  does  the  Govern- 
ment become  the  owner  of  such  bullion  or  money,  and  its 
coinage  is  wholly  for  the  benefit  of  the  holder  of  the  bullion. 

[  96  ] 


We  the  sound  money  men  claim,  supported  by  the  experi- 
ence of  every  nation  and  the  precepts  of  every  political  econo- 
mist of  the  first  class,  that  such  money  will  only  depreciate  the 
value  of  debts  and  obligations,  and  that  such  money,  freely 
coined,  will  drive  out  of  circulation  all  better  money.  We 
claim  that,  instead  of  bringing  on  Bimetalism,  it  will  only 
produce  silver  Monometalism  and  a  greatly  depreciated  stand- 
ard of  value.  Such  system,  leaving  out  of  account  all  the 
disaster  and  ruin  brought  on  by  such  a  shock  to  commerce 
and  business,  would  finally  do  no  good  to  any  class  whatever, 
but  would  be  a  burden  and  injury  to  business,  and  especially 
of  great  detriment  to  all  the  laboring  classes. 

Now  let  us  examine  into  the  results  of  the  election  of 
Bryan,  financially  considered.  As  soon  as  Bryan  took  the 
oath  of  office  and  appointed  his  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
and  as  soon  as  that  Secretary  refused  to  follow  the  prece- 
dents of  Secretary  Carlisle  and  other  Secretaries  in  paying 
gold  on  demand  on  the  presentation  of  Treasury  notes, 
Greenbacks,  etc.,  gold  would  immediately  go  to  a  premium 
and  we  should  descend  to  the  silver  standard,  for  gold  would 
no  longer  be  used  as  redemption  money  by  banks  or  by  any- 
body else.  All  paper  money,  being  redeemable  in  coin, 
would  be  redeemed  in  silver,  and  would  be  worth  no  more 
than  the  bullion  contained  in  the  silver  coin.  This  would 
take  place  before  the  passage  of  a  law  for  the  free  and  un- 
limited coinage  of  silver.  When  such  a  law  was  passed,  for 
we  are  assuming  that  the  experiment  is  to  be  carried  out,  the 
only  inducement  for  the  coinage  of  silver  bullion  into  dollars 
would  be  the  advantage  of  holding  such  dollars  over  the 
holding  of  silver  bullion.  The  experience  of  all  nations  is 
that  such  dollars  are  only  worth  the  bullion  they  contain,  so 
that  appreciation  of  the  value  of  silver  would  be  slight,  cer- 
tainly not  sufficient  to  raise  it  100  per  cent,  in  value.  What- 
ever appreciation  took  place  would  be  under  the  law  of  sup- 
ply and  demand  and  not  because  of  any  fiat  of  the  govern- 
ment. Increased  demand  for  silver,  caused  by  its  enlarged 

C  97  ] 


use  as  money  in  the  United  States  (and  its  price  is  deter- 
mined by  international  supply  and  demand),  would  be  met 
and  compensated  for  by  increased  production,  which  would 
be  the  result  of  any  rise  in  its  value. 

Bryan  says  free  coinage  would  cause  an  unlimited  de- 
mand for  silver,  which  would  raise  the  value  of  a  silver  dol- 
lar to  a  gold  dollar.  Such  a  statement  is  nonsensical  and 
false.  The  demand  for  silver  would  be  the  inducement 
caused  by  the  difference  of  value  between  the  bullion  and  the 
coined  dollar  which,  not  being  convertible  into  or  redeem- 
able by  a  gold  dollar,  could  under  no  circumstances  be  equal 
to  a  gold  dollar,  until  by  world  action  and  convertibility  the 
silver  in  the  silver  dollar  throughout  the  world  should  be 
equal  to  the  gold  in  the  gold  dollar. 

The  only  effect  of  free  coinage  of  silver  and  making  it  a 
legal  tender  of  the  United  States  would  be,  as  I  have  before 
said,  to  depreciate  the  value  of  all  obligations,  both  govern- 
mental and  individual.  In  the  first  place,  such  descent  to 
the  silver  basis  would  wonderfully  contract  the  aggregate 
value  of  the  currency — I  mean  its  power  and  capacity  to 
carry  on  the  business  of  the  country.  Suppose  such  policy 
should  appreciate  the  value  of  silver  little  or  nothing,  which 
I  think  would  be  the  case,  then  our  six  hundred  and  twenty- 
five  millions  of  silver  would  be  reduced  half  in  value;  our 
six  hundred  and  twenty-five  millions  of  gold  would  leave  the 
country  and  go  where  it  had  full  appreciation;  our  six  hun- 
dred millions  of  paper  money,  being  redeemable  in  coin, 
would  be  redeemed  in  silver;  so  that  our  eighteen  hundred 
millions  of  currency  would  be  reduced  to  one-third  its  value 
and  to  one-third  its  power  and  capacity  to  do  business — and 
all  this  would  take  place  before  any  free  currency  act  could 
be  passed  and  put  in  operation.  What  immense  damage  and 
loss  to  the  business  of  the  country  it  would  cause,  no  mind 
can  adequately  predict.  Suppose,  however,  that  finally,  af- 
ter disaster  and  loss,  after  repudiation  of  debts  and  national 
dishonor  and  shame,  we  were  adjusted  to  a  silver  basis,  what 

[  98  ] 


would  be  the  result?  What  benefit  would  it  be  to  the  na- 
tion? Would  it  make  us  any  richer  to  call  fifty  cents  a  dol- 
lar? Would  it  add  anything  to  the  real  capital  of  the 
country?  If  it  did,  then  it  would  be  still  better  to  call  ten 
cents  a  dollar,  and  get  nominally  five  times  as  much  money 
for  our  commodities. 

The  great  body  of  our  people  are  laborers.  Let  us  see 
how  it  would  affect  them.  When  the  currency  is  depreci- 
ated, the  price  of  commodities  rises  in  a  great  deal  higher 
proportion  than  wages;  wages  are  the  last  to  rise,  and  always 
rise  in  less  proportion  than  commodities.  The  history  of 
our  greenback  inflation  period,  during  and  after  the  war, 
proves  this,  according  to  the  Congressional  report  of  1893. 
I  will  not  weary  you  with  detail.  Commodities  in  the  aver- 
age rose  about  twice  the  per  cent,  that  wages  did.  Now,  let 
us  see  whether  an  increased  employment  would  follow  the 
free  coinage  of  silver.  Wages,  like  all  other  things,  are  con- 
trolled by  the  law  of  supply  and  demand.  The  capital  to  be 
employed  in  production  is  the  wages  fund,  for  all  the  ele- 
ments of  the  cost  of  production  can  finally  be  resolved  into 
wages.  This  capital  makes  the  demand  for  wages;  you  can- 
not absolutely  increase  the  value  of  wages  except  by  increas- 
ing the  amount  of  capital.  Calling  fifty  cents  a  dollar  does 
not  increase  the  amount  of  capital  in  the  said  piece  of  money. 
But  there  is  a  more  important  phase.  The  currency  is  but  a 
small  proportion  of  the  capital  of  a  country,  credit  composes 
a  very  large  part  of  the  capital  and,  consequently,  of  the 
wages-fund.  In  fact,  about  ninety  per  cent,  of  transactions 
are  settled  by  some  form  of  credit,  and  from  five  to  ten  per 
cent,  by  money.  As  civilization  advances,  as  men  are 
brought  nearer  together  by  railroads,  telephones,  telegraphs 
and  steamships,  as  knowledge  and  confidence  of  man  in  man 
increases;  in  fine,  as  civilization  progresses,  credit  more  and 
more  will  predominate  in  the  transactions  of  the  world. 
Now  without  increased  capital,  which  consists  of  both  money 
and  credit,  we  cannot  have  increased  wages  or  increased  em- 

[  99  ] 


ployment.  Free  Silver  diminishes  the  amount  of  capital  by 
driving  out  the  gold,  by  lessening  by  one-half  the  value  of 
our  silver  money  already  coined,  and  of  the  paper  now  in 
existence  which  will  then  be  based  upon  the  silver  dollar,  be- 
sides reducing  in  a  far  greater  degree  the  amount  of  credit 
capital;  for  when  uncertainty  and  distrust  prevail,  credit  dis- 
appears. So  that  relatively  even  after  we  get  adjusted  to 
the  silver  basis,  wages,  compared  with  the  present,  will  de- 
preciate in  value. 

The  countries  which  have  the  greatest  capital  employ  the 
most  labor  and  pay  the  highest  wages.  The  laborer  will  be 
the  most  hurt  by  the  free  coinage  of  silver.  In  fine,  it  is  a 
scheme  which  will  pay  him  off  in  fifty-cent  dollars,  and  by 
crippling  the  industries  of  the  country  will  make  less  demand 
for  his  services,  and  consequently  give  him  less  employment. 
One  gentleman  of  my  acquaintance,  who  is  a  finely  educated 
mathematician,  is  for  Free  Silver  in  behalf  of  the  farmer  for 
the  sole  reason  that  it  will  enable  him  to  pay  off  his  laborers 
so  much  the  more  cheaply. 

I  heard  Governor  Stone  of  Missouri  (and  by  the  way  up 
to  this  time  it  has  been  the  only  speech  I  have  heard  in  the 
campaign)  speak  here  the  other  day,  and  I  propose  now  to 
answer  his  two  or  three  principal  points  made  on  the  finan- 
cial issue.  His  points  were,  first,  that  we  are  big  and  great 
enough  to  have  our  financial  system  as  we  wish,  independent 
of  the  action  of  other  nations;  secondly  that,  as  silver  depre- 
ciated on  account  of  demonetization  in  1873  ^Y  tne  United 
States,  therefore  the  restoration  of  free  coinage  would  ap- 
preciate the  silver  dollar  equal  to  the  gold  dollar;  and  lastly 
that,  as  all  parties  had  called  for  an  international  agreement, 
therefore  the  gold  standard  was  wrong. 

Legislation  cannot  abolish  any  of  the  laws  of  nature  or  of 
science.  All  the  legislation  in  the  world  cannot  make  Stoner 
Creek  run  up  stream,  or  make  a  body  fall  from  the  earth  in- 
stead of  to  it.  No  legislation  can  alter  the  law  of  value; 
absolute  value  is  controlled  by  the  law  of  supply  ^nd  de- 

[  100  ] 


mand,  and  legislation  can  only  affect  value  as  it  may  affect 
either  supply  or  demand,  or  both.  Law  can  make  a  thing 
legal  tender  for  debt,  but  it  cannot  arbitrarily  add  anything  to 
the  value  of  the  legal  tender  by  its  fiat.  We,  sound  money 
men,  are  no  more  intrinsically  for  gold  than  for  silver  or  iron 
or  any  other  commodity,  but  we  simply  demand,  as  a  condi- 
tion precedent  to  commercial  greatness  and  progressive  civili- 
zation and  to  good  faith  and  morality,  that  we  have  a  cur- 
rency of  stable  value.  We  would  use  all  of  the  gold  and  sil- 
ver possible  consistent  with  the  great  object  of  a  stable  cur- 
rency. We  know  that  the  free  coinage  of  silver  at  the  ratio 
of  1 6  to  i  will  give  us  a  depreciated  monometallic  silver  cur- 
rency of  very  fluctuating  quality.  We  do  not  object  to  sil- 
ver; we  do  demand  that  its  use  shall  not  destroy  the  gold  part 
of  our  currency,  and  that  it  shall  be  used  only  in  such  a  way 
as  to  produce  true  Bimetalism. 

A  great  many  sound  money  men  believe  that  silver  could 
be  freely  coined,  if  there  was  an  international  agreement  by 
all  the  prominent  commercial  nations  to  that  effect,  and  they 
believe  that  the  large  demand  so  made  for  silver  in  that  way 
would  appreciate  its  value  up  to  gold.  This  is  a  very  doubt- 
ful proposition  and  purely  speculative.  Under  our  present 
system  a  very  large  amount  of  silver,  fifty  times  as  great  a 
quantity  as  was  used  before  the  act  of  1873,  'ls  tnus  used  now, 
an  amount  representing  in  value  twice  the  same  amount  of 
silver  under  free  coinage  at  16  to  i.  In  fact,  the  gold  stand- 
ard countries  are  using  more  silver  than  they  did  under  free 
coinage. 

The  only  factor  in  the  public  mind,  without  it  the  move- 
ment would  have  no  strength,  in  favor  of  free  silver  at  the 
present  time  is  the  low  price  of  commodities  and  the  de- 
pressed condition  of  business. 

Let  us  analyze  these  matters  a  little.  Wheat,  corn  and 
land  have  depreciated  in  value.  In  the  first  place,  we  claim 
the  free  silver  agitation  has  done  much  to  depress  business. 
Secondly,  the  great  activity  in  the  invention  of  labor-saving 

[  101  ] 


machinery  and  the  too  rapid  extension  of  the  railroad  system 
to  the  cheap  lands  of  the  world  also  have  had  a  hand  in  this. 

First  as  to  the  Free  Silver  agitation:  John  Stuart  Mill 
has  substantially  said  that  the  aggregate  circulation  of  cur- 
rency, that  fixes  prices  any  given  time,  is  the  amount  of 
money  multiplied  by  the  rapidity  of  its  circulation  in  the 
given  time,  plus  the  amount  of  all  the  varied  forms  of  credit 
used  in  settling  transactions  multiplied  by  their  average  ra- 
pidity of  circulation.  The  aggregate  of  both  is  the  total 
amount  offered  for  commodities  and  services  during  the 
stated  period.  Now  in  the  United  States  and  England  and 
the  most  civilized  states,  the  credit  forms  vastly  predominate 
in  amount.  In  the  United  States  and  England  the  credit 
forms  make  probably  about  90  per  cent.  Suppose  the  money 
part  of  the  above  to  remain  the  same,  can  any  one  deny  the 
vast  contraction  of  the  credit  part  produced  by  the  Free 
Silver  agitation?  Such  contraction  is  just  as  efficient  in  re- 
ducing prices  as  a  contraction  in  the  money  part  of  the 
circulation. 

Secondly,  as  to  the  extension  of  the  new  railroads  into  the 
cheap  lands  of  the  world.  In  Manitoba,  in  Argentina, 
Siberia,  Australia  and  Africa,  railroads  have  opened  up  new 
lands  with  cheap  transportation  for  wheat,  corn,  cattle,  etc. 
Also  cheap  ocean  transportation  has  been  found,  by  which 
these  articles  from  the  cheap  lands  of  the  world  can  advan- 
tageously compete  in  the  European  markets  with  our  surplus, 
the  price  of  which  controls  our  home  prices. 

We  cannot  repeal  the  law  of  supply  and  demand.  We 
must  compete  with  these  countries  of  cheap  lands  and  labor. 
Free  Silver  will  only  handicap  us  in  that  competition,  its  only 
advantage  among  many  burdens  being  the  fact  that  it  would 
cheapen  labor.  But,  with  our  universal  suffrage,  to  degrade 
labor  is  to  degrade  our  government,  because  our  liberty  and 
institutions  rest  upon  the  intelligence  and  reasonable  content 
of  the  laboring  masses  who  are  in  a  vast  majority. 

The  effects  of  free  coinage,  to  sum  up,  would  be  to  impair 

[  102  ] 


the  obligations  of  contracts;  to  allow  the  debtor  to  cheat  his 
creditor;  to  hurt  the  orphan,  the  Savings-bank  depositor,  the 
pensioner,  the  great  body  of  the  people,  the  laborers;  to  hon- 
estly help  no  one;  to  make  a  deadly  breach  in  the  national 
credit;  to  damage  all  business;  to  immensely  contract,  for  a 
long  time  at  least,  the  currency  and  the  ability  of  the  country 
to  do  business;  and,  finally,  to  frighten  foreign  capital,  to 
do  no  one  substantial  good,  but  to  fasten  upon  the  country  a 
system,  adopted  by  only  semi-civilized  nations;  all,  in  truth, 
an  encouragement  to  demagogues  to  start  new  agitations  for 
new  breaches  of  national  faith.  Free  Silver  failing  to  give 
the  required  relief  and  be  a  panacea  of  all  ills,  we  should 
then  have  the  campaign  for  an  irredeemable  paper  currency, 
until  finally  we  rushed  upon  financial  disaster  and  destruction. 

There  is  another  point  in  the  Chicago  platform  that  I 
shall  refer  to  before  I  close,  and  it  is  even  worse  than  the 
free  coinage  of  silver  at  16  to  i.  I  mean  the  riot  clause. 
In  this  great  country  governed  by  the  people,  with  free  suf- 
frage for  every  male  over  twenty-one,  our  greatest  danger  is 
not  directly  the  chance  of  despotism,  but  the  reckless  spirit  of 
disregard  for  law  and  order.  In  this  country  we  have  no 
king  by  divine  right  to  rule  over  us  and  to  give  authority  to 
his  mandates;  but  the  law  must  be  king,  and,  unless  it  is  en- 
forced and  revered,  anarchy  and  chaos  await  us.  Despotism 
would  be  welcomed  for  security.  Our  road  to  despotism  is 
through  lawlessness  and  anarchy.  Cleveland  performed 
only  his  constitutional  and  necessary  duty  in  Chicago.  He 
interposed  only  to  enforce  the  National  laws  when  violated. 
That  act  I  approved  more  than  any  other  act  of  his  adminis- 
tration. For  the  Democrats  to  condemn  such  action — and 
the  Chicago  platform  can  mean  nothing  else — is  to  lend  itself 
to  the  cause  of  anarchy,  and  finally  of  despotism. 

Nations  are  like  individuals.  To  the  individual  comes 
times  of  trial  and  temptation.  How  often,  when  the  burden 
of  doing  right  and  meeting  manfully  our  varied  obligations 
is  upon  us,  the  tempter  whispers  to  us  of  some  seemingly 

[  103  ] 


easier  course,  some  evading  of  moral  obligations,  some  cheat- 
ing of  him  who,  we  think,  can  afford  to  stand  it.  Resist  such 
blandishments.  Bravely  meet  our  duty,  and  our  character 
becomes  strengthened  and  conscience  approves.  Give  way, 
and  the  first  step  is  taken  that  leads  to  moral  destruction  and 
ruin. 

So  with  the  nation.  As  a  nation,  first  let  us  be  honest, 
because  it  is  right;  finally,  we  will  find  it  the  best  policy  also. 
Should  we  now  give  way  to  the  specious  pleas  of  the  dema- 
gogue, we  will  not  be  able  to  refrain  from  taking  the  next 
step.  The  road  to  Avernus  is  easy,  and  easier  as  step  by  step 
we  descend.  Repudiation  and  riot  now,  next  anarchy  and 
communism,  for  security  and  rest,  despotism.  I  have  too 
much  confidence  in  the  intelligence  and  virtue  of  the  Ameri- 
can people  to  believe  that  such  is  to  be  our  fate.  No!  In 
this  land  I  hope  is  fated  to  live  liberty  and  law,  security  and 
order,  freedom  and  justice.  I  believe  the  divine  fiat  has 
gone  forth  and  the  forces  of  repudiation,  riot  and  disorder 
are  doomed.  The  founders  of  the  republic  have  not 
founded  it  in  vain.  Law  and  order,  liberty  and  justice,  shall 
rule. 


CAUSE  OF  THE  SPLIT  IN  THE   DEMOCRATIC 

PARTY. 

From  the  Lexington  Herald,  June  27,   1902. 

Please  permit  me  a  few  words  about  a  matter  that  has 
been  discussed  in  the  columns  of  your  paper,  in  the  Courier- 
Journal,  and  doubtless,  in  other  prominent  papers  of  the 
country,  viz. :  The  responsibility  for,  and  the  causes  of,  the 
split  in  the  Democratic  party  on  the  issue  of  the  free  coinage 
of  silver.  The  Courier- Journal  has  held  that  the  split  could 
have  been  prevented  by  proper  action  on  Mr.  Cleveland's 
part — at  least,  such  has  been  the  impression  made  upon  our 
minds  by  reading  its  editorials.  Even  the  Herald,  though  a 
friend  of  Mr.  Cleveland,  has  held  that  a  lack  of  a  certain 
tact  and  diplomacy  on  his  part,  in  his  relations  with  the 
Democratic  members  of  the  two  Houses,  probably  contributed 
considerably  to  such  result.  We  believe  that  Mr.  Cleve- 
land's actions  neither  materially  aided  such  division  of  the 
party,  nor  could  his  efforts,  however  exerted,  have  prevented 
such  division. 

We  believe  in  the  science  of  sociology:  that  every  move- 
ment in  a  society  or  nation  has  adequate  causes  just  the  same 
as  every  phenomenon  in  the  physical  world;  in  fine,  that  no 
effect  in  either  is  without  its  efficient  causes  or  antecedents. 
The  action  of  a  people  or  party,  in  the  average  and  in  the 
long  run,  especially  where  universal  suffrage  rules,  can  rise 
no  higher  than  the  average  intelligence  of  the  units  endowed 
with  such  suffrage.  The  same  is  true  of  a  government  of  a 
nation,  or  of  a  party,  in  regard  to  any  particular  question 
when  such  question  is  emphasized  and  made  an  important 
issue. 

In  all  eras  and  in  all  countries,  the  economic  fallacy  of 

[  105  ] 


curing  bad  times  by  a  resort  to  inflation  of  the  currency,  even 
though  that  inflation  be  with  bad  or  a  wholly  or  partly  fiat 
currency,  has  been  wonderfully  attractive  to  those  not  well 
versed  in  economic  science.  To  be  able  to  resist  such  falla- 
cious temptation  requires,  in  times  of  great  commercial  de- 
pression, on  the  part  of  the  individual,  a  considerable  educa- 
tion in  the  science  of  political  economy,  or  a  very  thorough 
and  practical  acquaintance  with  the  subject  of  banking  and 
general  business.  A  man  may  be  well  informed  in  other  re- 
spects and  be  very  deficient  in  his  knowledge  of  political 
economy.  The  natural  tendency  of  the  mind  uneducated  in 
financial  matters,  as  all  history  shows,  is  to  freely  accept  the 
fallacies  of  inflation  and  fiat  moneyism.  The  tendency  be- 
comes very  strong  in  times  of  great  depression,  when  prices 
are  low  and  money  seemingly  scarce — and  such  tendency  is 
much  aggravated  by  the  violent  and  passionate  appeals  of 
selfish  demagogues. 

Now,  what  were  the  conditions  in  1896?  It  was  a  time 
of  great  business  depression.  Prices  of  all  products  were  ex- 
ceedingly low.  A  large  number  of  Democratic  politicians, 
some  selfishly,  some  honestly,  were  actively  preaching  the 
merits  of  free  coinage  of  silver  as  the  panacea  for  "all  our 
business  ills,  and  to  a  constituency  who  were  sorely  distressed 
and  in  their  misery  anxiously  seeking  for  some  remedy  for 
their  grievous  condition.  A  vast  majority  of  the  Demo- 
cratic voters  in  the  South  and  extreme  West  were  not  trained 
to  a  proper  understanding  of  political  economy,  and  were 
made,  by  the  prevailing  business  depression,  prone  to  accept 
any  possible  remedy.  This  feeling  that  was  aroused  was 
much  inflamed  by  the  constant  and  vehement  assertion,  by 
demagogues,  that  the  sound  money  movement  had  for  its 
purpose  the  enslavement  of  the  people  by  capital. 

The  Democratic  politicians  who  had  the  proper  economic 
training  or  knowledge,  knowing  all  these  facts,  after  some 
active  effort  thoroughly  understanding  the  utter  hopelessness 
of  educating  the  public  sentiment  of  the  party  under  such 

[  106  ] 


adverse  conditions  (for  the  principles  of  solid  finance  are  a 
science  not  to  be  easily  mastered),  finally  either  stuck  to  their 
convictions,  and  necessarily  retired  from  political  activity; 
or  else,  actuated  by  less  earnest  convictions,  or  by  a  slighter 
appreciation  of  the  importance  of  the  question,  waived  their 
objections  and  more  or  less  passively  went  with  the  majority.1 
We  hold  that  these  general  conditions,  so  briefly  stated, 
in  spite  of  anything  that  Mr.  Cleveland  either  did,  or  could 
have  done,  inevitably  produced  the  split  that  occurred;  and 
that  the  want  of  sufficient  economic  training  in  the  great 
masses  of  the  party  in  the  West  and  South,  under  the  great 
stress  of  the  financial  depression,  necessarily  brought  about 
these  results.  The  same  tendency  was  at  one  time  shown  in 
regard  to  the  greenback  question.  The  very  fact  that  the 
Democratic  voters  in  the  South  and  West  were  in  the  average 
men  of  a  good  deal  of  education  and  information  and  habitu- 
ated to  a  more  or  less  extent  to  think  and  decide  for  them- 
selves, contributed  to  the  final  result.  Had  they  been  like 
the  mass  of  the  negroes,  led  by  a  few  men,  they  might  have 
been  managed  by  such  authority  to  accept  either  side  of  the 
issue.  But  the  fact  of  their  manhood  and  independence  of 
character  gave  positive  force  and  vitality  to  their  choice  and 
prevented  them  from  being  led  or  influenced  by  outside  lead- 
ers. One  may  well  ask  why  was  not  the  Republican  party 
necessitated  by  the  same  conditions  into  the  same  lines  of 
action.  Simply  because  in  the  North  and  Central  West, 


1  To  quote  from  a  further  discussion  written  by  Mr.  Clay:  "It  is  absolutely 
necessary  that  a  person  be  well  grounded  in  the  simple  and  elementary  theories 
of  finance  and  value.  No  science  so  affects  and  underlies  nearly  all  questions  of 
vital  legislative  enactment,  and  none  should  be  more  studied  by  the  politician  and 
statesman.  How  great  a  lack  of  knowledge  of  the  simplest  and  plainest  truths  of 
the  science  is  continually  shown  by  our  Senators  and  Representatives!  In  fact, 
for  one  of  them  to  have  such  knowledge  is  the  exception  rather  than  the  rule.  Very 
jikely  our  republican  form  of  government  with  universal  suffrage  is  to  blame  for 
it.  The  Representative  cannot  in  the  average  rise  above  the  average  of  his  con- 
stituency in  his  ideas  and  views.  He  may  far  exceed  their  average  in  ability,  but 
finds  it  as  a  necessity  to  his  continuance  in  political  life  to  faithfully  represent  his 
constituency's  views,  passions  and  prejudices,  and  more  especially  the  last.  So 
knowledge  that  is  not  shared  by  the  majority  of  his  constituents  is  more  in  the 
nature  of  a  burden  than  a  benefit  to  the  active  politician.  So  after  all  in  all 
probability  the  only  way  reform  in  this  matter  can  be  brought  about,  will  be  by 
the  slow  and  gradual  process  of  a  general  education  of  the  great  masses  of  the 
voters  in  regard  to  these  subjects.  As  the  people  generally  realize  the  importance 
of  these  principles,  they  will  gradually  enforce  upon  their  political  representatives 
the  necessity  ot  having  a  like  knowledge." 

[  107  ] 


where  the  influential  members  of  the  party  reside,  a  greater 
commercial  and  a  more  complicated  business  activity  has 
given  a  better  understanding  and  appreciation  of  the  supreme 
importance  of  a  standard  of  value  of  the  greatest  possible 
stability.  In  other  words  there  has  been  a  better  training,  in 
the  average,  of  the  people  in  financial  matters.  Also  the  fact 
that  these  sections  had  accumulated  much  more  capital,  not 
so  much  in  land  but  in  forms  to  be  much  affected  by  a  deterio- 
rated and  debased  legal  tender  currency,  no  doubt,  enhanced 
the  importance  to  them  of  a  stable  standard  of  value. 

Let  no  one  suppose  that  we  cast  any  aspersions  on  the 
general  intelligence  or  the  political  honesty  of  the  Democrats 
of  the  South  and  West.  Political  economy  is  a  science  and, 
like  all  other  sciences,  has  to  be  studied  to  be  understood. 
This  is  a  day  of  subdivision  of  labor,  research  and  attain- 
ment. It  is  no  reflection  on  a  man's  general  intelligence  and 
character,  that  he  does  not  understand  chemistry.  It  is  cer- 
tainly no  aspersion  on  a  great  editor's  intelligence  that  he  has 
to  consult  a  lawyer  as  to  his  lawsuits;  and  so  it  is  as  to  any 
particular  science.  Finally  the  fact  that  the  South  and  West 
in  the  average  did  not  possess  the  knowledge  of  finance,  pos- 
sessed in  the  average  by  the  North  and  the  East,  does  not 
mean  that  their  general  intelligence  and  faculties  are  any  less, 
but  are  simply  developed  in  other  directions  according  to 
their  environment  and  necessities. 

We  are  no  hero  worshipper,  and  believe  that  at  least  in 
our  day  and  generation,  where  so  many  men  are  equipped  to 
do  their  own  thinking,  and  where  the  forces  of  civilization 
are  so  many  and  complicated,  that  individual  men  count  for 
but  little,  and  that  the  mighty  forces  that  work  our  weal  or 
woe  are  the  accumulated  power  of  millions  of  minds  in  the 
past  and  present,  combined  with  the  impulses  that  continu- 
ally spring  from  environment  and  ever  changing  physical 
conditions. 


WHY    CONSERVATIVE    DEMOCRATS    SHOULD 
VOTE  FOR  TAFT.1 

We  have  been  asked  why  we  support  Taft  and  oppose 
Bryan.  We  have  two  controlling  reasons  why,  as  sound 
money  conservative  Democrats,  we  cannot  support  Bryan.  In 
the  first  place,  we  believe  one  of  the  greatest  dangers  to  our 
country  in  the  future  is  the  continuous  growth  and  develop- 
ment of  socialistic  and  communistic  influence.  The  great 
fight  of  the  future  is,  we  fear,  with  Socialism.  We  believe 
Mr.  Bryan's  views,  in  spite  of  his  personal  denial  to  the  con- 
trary, which  is  now  necessary  to  hold  conservative  votes, 
advance  the  cause  of  Socialism  and  lead  gradually  to  a  Social- 
istic republic.  We  believe  in  our  form  of  well  balanced, 
constitutional,  representative  government,  in  which  individ- 
ual rights  are  amply  guaranteed  and  protected,  and  individ- 
ual development  promoted.  We  consider  an  absolute  or 
unlimited  democracy  no  better  than  a  one-man  despotism; 
nay,  even  worse,  for  the  despotism  of  the  mob  is  worse  than 
that  of  one  man.  The  Democracies  of  the  past  illustrate  the 
evils  of  unbridled  democracy  in  which  there  is  no  check  on 
the  instant  will  of  the  mere  majority.  The  great  glory  of 
our  forefathers  of  the  Revolution,  in  establishing  our  form 
of  government,  was  that,  while  they  preserved  the  spirit  and 
substance  of  democracy,  they  imposed  checks  and  restraints 
upon  the  will  of  the  mere  majority,  so  that  its  sudden  injus- 
tices, passions  and  instabilities  were  eliminated,  and  its  final 
will  tempered  down  to  justice  and  wisdom.  They  divided 


1  Written  and  circulated  privately  as  a  pamphlet,  and  later,  by  request,  as  a 
campaign  document  in  the  Presidential  contest  of  1908.  This  and  the  newspaper 
article  that  follows  in  answer  to  Judge  Lindsay  were  published  with  the  anonymous 
signature,  "Conservative  Democrat." 

[   109  ] 


the  delegated  powers  of  the  National  Government  (and 
about  the  same  way  in  regard  to  the  undelegated,  of  the 
States)  into  three  equal  and  independent  departments,  and 
provided  that  neither  of  these  should  exercise  any  of  the 
powers  of  either  of  the  others.  As  you  well  know,  these  de- 
partments are  the  Executive,  Legislative  and  Judicial.  The 
Legislative  department  was  divided  into  two  bodies,  elected 
for  a  different  term  and  by  a  different  constituency,  each  hav- 
ing a  veto  upon  the  other.  Also  the  Executive  was  given  a 
qualified  veto  in  legislative  matters.  In  addition  they  gave 
to  the  courts  the  duty,  among  other  things,  of  keeping  all 
within  their  constitutional  limits,  and  above  all  they  placed  a 
written  constitution  in  which  certain  rights  of  the  individual 
and  the  states  were  placed  above  the  power  and  control  of 
any  or  all  of  these  departments,  or  that  of  any  mere  major- 
ity. As  a  matter  of  course,  there  was  a  way  prescribed  in 
which  this  constitution  could  be  amended.  As  a  conse- 
quence, we  have  a  stable  and  well  regulated  liberty.  Any  at- 
tempt to  break  down  these  guarantees  and  balances  can  lead 
only  to  a  less  stable  and  less  protected  liberty  for  the  indi- 
vidual. The  individual  needs  less  the  power,  along  with 
rnob,  to  impose  upon  others,  than  protection  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  his  rights  of  life,  liberty  and  property.  We  take  it 
that  the  two  candidates  for  the  Presidency,  in  their  views, 
opinions  and  characters,  are  mainly  their  own  platforms,  and 
the  mere  formal  platforms  to  catch  votes  are  far  less  impor- 
tant. As  illustrations  of  Mr.  Bryan's  tendencies  toward 
Socialism  and  the  breaking  down  of  Individualism  are  his 
views  in  favor  of  governmental  ownership  of  railroads,  his 
Initiative  and  Referendum,  his  election  of  Senators  by  popu- 
lar vote,  his  governmental  guarantee  of  Bank  Deposits,  his 
breaking  down  of  the  powers  of  the  courts  in  limiting  their 
power  to  punish  for  contempt,  and  other  opinions  of  the 
same  kind.  We  have  not  space  to  elaborate  these  points,  but 
their  tendencies  are  apparent. 

We  will  now  proceed  to  our  second  point,  viz.:  that  Mr. 


Bryan's  election  threatens  the  business  stability  of  the  coun- 
try and  its  prosperity.  In  1896  he  was  a  rampant  Free  Sil- 
ver advocate,  claiming  that  the  fate  of  the  country  depended 
upon  the  success  of  his  propaganda,  and  that  the  direst  conse- 
quences would  follow  any  other  course.  Among  other  fool- 
ish things  that  he  proclaimed,  he  declared  that  Wheat  and 
Silver  kept  together  in  value,  and  that,  if  Free  Silver  did  not 
prevail,  Wheat  would  never  again  rise  above  fifty  cents  per 
bushel  in  value.  He  made  other  as  foolish  and  equally  as 
fallacious  prophecies.  The  trouble  with  Mr.  Bryan  was 
that  he  had  never  studied  real  Political  Economy,  and  all  his 
views  on  business  questions  were  more  or  less  poisoned  with 
the  fundamental  fallacy  that  the  fiat  of  the  government  made 
value,  whether  it  promised  to  pay  in  something  valuable  or 
not.  All  his  views  on  political  economy  and  business  are 
more  or  less  vitiated  by  this  fallacy  of  governmental  fiatism 
and,  should  he  be  right  on  any  such  question,  it  would  be 
more  in  the  nature  of  an  accident  than  from  the  force  of 
sound  reasoning. 

In  other  words,  from  our  past  experience  of  him,  we 
have  no  confidence  in  his  judgment  about  business  questions, 
and  if  he  should  be  elected  President,  we  very  much  fear  that 
some  financial  crisis  would  arise,  to  meet  which  a  well  trained, 
economic  judgment  would  be  required,  and  in  which  Mr. 
Bryan  might  be  found  lamentably  lacking.  What  would  Mr. 
Bryan  do,  for  instance,  if  he  had  to  meet  the  situation  that 
confronted  Mr.  Cleveland's  second  administration  when  he 
had  to  sell  bonds  for  gold  to  support  the  credit  of  the  coun- 
try? Again,  there  is  a  great  difference  between  Mr.  Bryan's 
views  about  the  regulation  of  corporations  and  Judge  Taft's, 
and  we  again  take  Mr.  Bryan's  views  before  his  nomination 
and  not  the  platform.  Judge  Taft,  fully  appreciating  that 
large  aggregations  of  capital  are  inevitable  results  of  our  ma- 
terial, mechanical  and  scientific  development,  necessary  also, 
in  order  to  produce,  manufacture  and  transport  as  cheaply  as 
possible  in  order  to  successfully  compete  with  the  other  na- 

[   HI   ] 


tions  in  the  markets  of  the  world,  where  our  continually  in- 
creasing surplus  must  be  sold,  yet  at  the  same  time  under- 
stands and  is  much  impressed  with  the  abuses  that  have  arisen 
under  this  system,  and  he  believes  in  regulating  these  corpora- 
tions to  effectually  prevent  these  abuses  and  to  protect  the 
public,  and  at  the  same  time  to  give  reasonable  justice  to  the 
corporation.  This  is  what  may  be  appropriately  called  Con- 
structive Regulation.  This  in  the  long  run  is  in  the  interest 
of  both  the  public  and  the  corporation.  It  takes  from  the 
Socialist  his  main  argument  in  favor  of  his  system,  the  ex- 
cesses and  abuses  of  the  corporate  power,  and  insures  to  the 
public  the  advantages  without  the  abuses  of  the  system.  Mr. 
Bryan,  on  the  other  hand,  in  one  of  his  speeches  after  his 
return  from  Europe,  declared  that  the  man  who  advocated 
the  regulation  of  trusts  and  monopolies  (and  he  has  never 
clearly  defined  them,  and  the  natural  inference  is  that  he 
meant  all  large  corporations)  was  the  enemy  of  the  people, 
and  instead  of  being  regulated  they  should  be  destroyed. 
This  might  appropriately  be  called  Destructive  Regulation. 
The  difference  between  these  two  positions  is  as  wide  as  the 
poles  are  apart.  Nearly  every  man  is  for  some  sort  of  regu- 
lation of  corporations,  but  the  greatest  difference  of  opinion 
is  embraced  in  the  wide  range  of  possible  regulation.  Mr. 
Bryan  and  his  friends  are  fond  of  confusing  these  distinc- 
tions, and  thus  improperly  classing  Roosevelt  and  Bryan  to- 
gether, in  order  to  give  respectability  to  the  latter's  opinion, 
heretofore  so  discredited  before  the  business  world.  Now  if 
the  commencement  of  constructive  regulation  of  corporations 
by  Roosevelt,  as  many  claim,  helped  to  bring  on  our  recent 
panic  and  financial  depression,  what,  in  all  probability,  would 
the  carrying  out  of  the  destructive  regulation  of  corporations 
and  business  under  Bryan  produce?  Surely,  one  of  the  worst 
and  most  prolonged  financial  depressions  that  ever  afflicted 
this  country.  Right  here  let  us  say  a  word  in  regard  to 
labor.  The  laborer  is  more  interested  than  the  members  of 
any  other  class  in  the  smooth  running  of  the  financial  system. 


Only  when  business  is  prosperous,  and  capital  not  intimidated 
and  driven  to  cover,  is  employment  general  and  the  laborer 
not  out  of  a  job.  Any  financial  jar  or  depression  curtails  pro- 
duction and  takes  away  employment  from  the  laborer.  When- 
ever the  greatest  amount  of  production  or  work  is  to  be  done, 
the  competition  for  labor  is  the  greatest,  and  wages  the  high- 
est and  employment  continuous  and  certain.  It  is  far  better 
for  the  laborer  by  good  wages  and  continuous  employment,  to 
have  no  occasion  to  strike,  than  to  be  slightly  aided,  if  at  all, 
in  a  strike,  by  weakening  the  power  of  the  courts  to  protect 
the  rights  of  life,  liberty  and  property.  Labor  certainly 
cannot  afford  to  stand  the  crude  and  radical  experiments 
of  Mr.  Bryan  in  business  matters,  and  their  certain  and 
inevitable  results,  disaster  and  curtailing  of  wages  and  em- 
ployment. 

Considering  these  points,  which  we  have  very  briefly  dis- 
cussed, we  cannot,  as  conservative  Democrats,  support  Mr. 
Bryan.  Mr.  Watterson  says,  if  he  can  support  Mr.  Bryan, 
he  does  not  see  how  any  other  Democrat  can  refuse  to  do  so. 
We  refer  to  this  simply  because  he  asks  the  question.  He 
tells  in  an  editorial  that  his  paper  lost  $500,000  by  the  cam- 
paign it  made  against  Bryan  in  1896.  It  is  evident  that  the 
paper  cannot  well  stand  another  such  loss.  The  constituency 
of  the  Courier-Journal  is  mainly  Democratic,  and  not  to  sup- 
port Bryan  would  entail  a  great  financial  loss  upon  the  paper. 
Hence  the  business  interest  of  the  paper  requires  its  present 
course  and,  while  Mr.  Watterson  may  be  very  conscientious 
in  his  present  advocacy  of  Mr.  Bryan,  still  there  is  also  a 
compelling  business  reason.  With  a  good  many  of  us  it 
is  different.  With  a  much  less  strain  upon  our  business  inter- 
ests, we  can  act  independently.  We  desire  to  claim  no  extra 
virtue,  but  simply  to  explain  the  difference  of  the  strain  and 
temptation  in  our  respective  cases.  Some  one  will  say,  as 
tariff  reformers,  how  can  you  support  Mr.  Taft,  more  or  less 
a  Protectionist?  Mr.  Bryan  has  never  seemed  to  attach  much 
importance  to  tariff  reform,  completely  shelving  it  as  an  issue 

[  113  ] 


in  1896.  To  show  how  little  he  has  studied  the  question  from 
an  economic  and  philosophic  standpoint,  the  other  day,  when 
he  made  his  tariff  speech,  he  never  even  referred  to  the  eco- 
nomic argument  against  protection — the  one  made  by  all  the 
great  political  economists  as  the  only  one  that  is  comprehen- 
sive, logical  and  conclusive,  viz.,  that  all  trade  between  two 
or  more  parties  depends  fundamentally,  as  certainly  as  the 
flow  of  water  or  gravity,  upon  a  difference  of  relative  effi- 
ciency in  producing  the  commodities  mutually  exchanged; 
and  that,  consequently,  any  curtailing  of  the  freedom  of  ex- 
change necessarily  results  in  a  loss  of  efficiency  in  both  the 
capital  and  labor  employed;  and  the  greater  the  interference, 
the  greater  the  loss  to  both.  We  have  no  time  but  to  barely 
hint  at,  or  suggest  this  argument.  All  the  students  of  politi- 
cal economy  will  understand.  As  a  matter  of  course,  any 
theory  has  to  be  applied  practically  with  a  due  regard  to  the 
existing  facts  and  conditions  of  the  situation.  So  we  take  it, 
as  tariff  reformers,  we  cannot  expect  much  from  a  Presiden- 
tial candidate  who  does  not  even  seem  to  understand  the  eco- 
nomic argument  in  favor  of  tariff  reform,  and  who,  in  his 
previous  races,  has  always  sidetracked  this  true  Democratic 
issue  in  favor  of  some  false  or  Socialistic  program,  and  also 
upon  whom  finally  the  responsibility  for  the  defeat  of  tariff 
reform,  as  advanced  by  Cleveland,  Carlisle,  Wilson,  Watter- 
son,  Breckinridge  and  others,  after  its  partial  victory  in  the 
Wilson  bill,  rests  more  heavily  than  upon  any  other.  For  he 
put  it  aside  at  its  almost  successful  culmination,  giving  up  the 
true  faith  for  false  gods,  when  we  might  have  won;  and  a 
great  part  of  the  education  of  the  people  made  by  those  great 
men,  at  the  most  strenuous  exertion  of  their  best  talents,  was 
lost. 

In  addition  and  conclusion,  as  between  Taft,  with  his 
conservatism,  patriotism,  enlightened  independence  and 
splendid  executive  equipment,  and  Bryan,  with  his  pleasing 
and  engaging  personality,  magnetism  and  splendid  stump  ora- 
tory, but  unsound  business  views  and  apparently  plausible 

[  114  ] 


and  insinuating  demagogism,  the  choice  of  the  Conservative 
Democrat  should  be  plain.  The  only  way  to  rescue  the  Demo- 
cratic ship  from  the  shoals  of  Socialism  and  business  uncer- 
tainty and  disaster  is  to  repudiate  the  captain  who  is  guiding 
the  ship  upon  these  shoals. 


CONSERVATIVE   DEMOCRAT,    IN   ANSWER   TO 
JUDGE  LINDSAY. 

'  'Conservative  Democrat/  whose  recent  pamphlet,  printed  for 
private  circulation  among  his  personal  friends  in  an  adjoining  county, 
the  Leader  took  the  liberty  of  reprinting,  has  written  a  strong  reply 
to  Judge  William  Lindsay's  Lexington  address  of  last  Monday,  and 
has  folloived  it  up  with  convincing  affirmative  arguments  in  favor  of 
the  election  of  Judge  Taft.  The  writer,  as  the  Leader  explained  be- 
fore, is  one  of  the  most  eminent  citizens  of  Kentucky,  a  man  who  has 
held  high  political  position;  and  his  appeal  to  conservative  Democrats 
to  continue  their  attitude  of  hostility  to  Bryan  and  Bryanism  has 
attracted  ivide  attention." — The  Lexington  Leader,  Oct.  77,  1908. 

We  have  carefully  read  the  Lexington  speech  of  Judge 
Lindsay  as  published  in  the  Herald,  and  would  like  to  dis- 
cuss briefly  the  more  important  points  made  by  him.  His 
first  contention,  is  that  Roosevelt  nominated  Taft,  and  that 
without  his  aid  Taft  would  not  have  been  nominated,  and  that 
now  Roosevelt  is  trying  to  elect  him,  all  of  which  he  claims  is 
very  wrong.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Taft  would  have  been 
nominated  without  Roosevelt's  aid.  His  prominence  before 
the  people  as  a  wonderfully  well  equipped  man  for  the  Presi- 
dency would  have  nominated  him.  Roosevelt's  assistance 
did  good  with  some,  with  others  it  did  injury.  But  surely  with 
his  tremendous  margin  of  majority  he  would  have  been  nomi- 
nated anyway.  The  office-holders  in  a  majority  of  cases  sup- 
ported him  as  they  naturally  should,  he  being  in  the  public 
eye,  and  commending  himself  to  them  by  his  superior  fitness 
and  worth;  and  that  they  did  support  him  is  to  their  infinite 
credit,  as  patriotism  demands  from  them  as  from  others  that 
they  make  a  conscientious  selection  to  fill  so  important  an 
office.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  office-holders,  as  in  case  of 
others,  were  divided  in  their  choice,  and  no  doubt  many  of 

[   117  ] 


them  did  not  support  Taft.  In  our  own  State,  Collector 
E.  T.  Franks  and  his  corps  of  assistants  favored  Fairbanks 
and  carried  the  Second  District  for  him. 

That  Mr.  Roosevelt,  with  a  most  intimate  acquaintance 
with  Taft,  should  so  warmly  endorse  him,  is  most  assuredly 
a  great  testimonial  in  favor  of  his  fitness  for  the  place  and  a 
most  approved  guarantee  that  Mr.  Taft  is  most  loyally  in 
favor  of  the  great  reform  policies,  but  now  only  partially 
carried  out,  as  advocated  by  Mr.  Roosevelt,  and  deemed  by 
him  so  essential  to  the  welfare  of  the  country.  Mr.  Roose- 
velt considers  these  policies  but  commenced,  and  well  knowing 
the  vast  amount  of  stubborn  opposition  that  they  are  to  en- 
counter, deems  it  a  matter  of  patriotic  duty  to  do  his  best  to 
fully  execute  this  program  in  order  to  properly  serve  his 
country.  Andrew  Jackson,  Jefferson  and  maybe  others,  have 
done  the  same  without  anything  like  equal  justification.  To 
say  that  Roosevelt,  after  his  unselfish  and  patriotic  renuncia- 
tion of  the  nomination  and  the  Presidency,  is  now  trying  to 
enslave  his  countrymen,  is  to  lend  one's  self  to  swell  the 
clamor  of  selfish  demagogues  and  reckless  agitators. 

In  regard  to  the  injunction  plank  of  the  Democratic  plat- 
form we  have,  in  reply  to  Judge  Lindsay,1  only  one  remark 
to  make.  As  a  justification  of  this  plank  he  quotes  the  Ken- 
tucky law  somewhat  favoring  this  principle.  Not  to  discuss 
the  question,  does  not  this  illustration  hurt  rather  than  benefit 
the  case  ?  Is  it  not  a  fact,  although  we  have  able  and  honest 
judges,  that  nowhere  else  is  the  law  as  feebly  and  as  tediously 
enforced  as  with  us?  Where  is  there  less  protection  to  life, 
liberty  and  property  than  in  many  parts  of  Kentucky?  2  I  do 
not  say  that  this  is  solely  attributed  to  this  cause,  but  a  large 
part  of  it  may  be.  If  our  Judges  cannot  command  respect 
for  their  courts  except  through  the  tedious  and  uncertain  ac- 
tion of  juries,  a  part  of  whom  may  be  aiders  and  abettors  of 

1  Referring  to  the  plank,  adopted  at  Denver,  to  weaken  the  power  of  the  courts 
to  restrain  by  injunction. 

"  "Night-rider"  outrages  in  the  tobacco  section,  and  feud  lawlessness  in  the 
mountains  were  instances  of  all  too  recent  occurrence. 

[  H8  ] 


the  very  lawlessness  that  the  Judges  in  the  enforcement  of  the 
law  are  trying  to  suppress,  then  indeed  is  one  of  the  causes  of 
the  continuances  of  such  lawlessness  explained. 

As  to  Judge  Lindsay's  scattering  points  on  the  tariff,  we, 
ourselves  tariff  reformers,  ask  what  are  we  to  expect  in  the 
way  of  tariff  reform  from  Mr.  Bryan,  a  man  who  in  his  past 
canvass  has  always  sidetracked  this  issue  in  favor  of  some 
populistic  and  visionary  scheme,  and  who  has  shown  by  all 
his  previous  performances  that  he  is  utterly  inadequate  to  han- 
dle properly  any  business  question?  With  the  Senate  com- 
posed as  it  is,  with  a  strong  Republican  majority,  Taft  can 
probably  do  more  to  reduce,  in  the  average,  the  tariff  than 
Bryan  could  possibly  accomplish.  Judge  Lindsay's  resent- 
ment at  the  passage  of  the  Dingley  tariff  act,  as  a  piece  of 
treachery  on  the  part  of  the  Republicans  to  the  gold  Demo- 
crats, is  a  little  out  of  place  as  regards  himself,  since  he  con- 
fesses that  he  did  not  vote  for  McKinley  in  1896,  but  for 
General  Palmer.  He  was  only  a  half-hearted  opponent  of 
Bryan  who  cast  a  half  vote  against  him.  Had  a  few  more 
"Half-Breeds,"  using  a  historical  designation  without  any 
discourtesy  to  Judge  Lindsay,  whom  we  greatly  esteem,  voted 
as  he  did,  Bryan  would  have  carried  Kentucky.  A  great  ma- 
jority of  the  sound  money  Democrats,  ourselves  included, 
fully  appreciating  what  we  were  doing  and  willing  to  take 
the  consequences,  voted  for  McKinley  as  a  choice  of  evils, 
feeling  that  such  action  was  demanded  by  patriotism  and  by  a 
due  regard  for  the  welfare  of  our  country.  We  might  have 
had  a  right  to  complain  about  the  tariff  matter,  but  Judge 
Lindsay  has  not. 

The  wisdom  of  our  choice  was  fully  justified  by  the  re- 
sults. All  the  direful  prophecies  of  Bryan  were  falsified  and 
an  era  of  unexampled  prosperity  followed.  So,  if  we  had  it 
to  do  over  again,  under  similar  circumstances,  we  would  cer- 
tainly vote  so  again.  There  would  have  been,  however,  one 
silver  lining  to  the  cloud  of  Bryan's  election,  had  he  been  then 
successful.  Bryan  and  Bryanism,  having  been  actually  test- 

[  119  ] 


ed,  would  have  been  thoroughly  eliminated  from  American 
politics;  and  the  Democratic  party,  purified  by  trouble  and 
disaster,  would  not  now  be  afflicted  by  Bryan  and  Bryanism. 
As  it  was,  Bryan's  disastrous  defeat  expelled  from  public 
life,  where  political  reputations  are  made,  all  Democratic 
Governors  and  United  States  Senators  from  the  Northern 
States ;  and,  as  the  Southern  leaders  were  modest,  this  left  him 
a  perfect  monopoly  of  leadership  in  the  party  to  its  harm  and 
detriment.  His  theories  not  having  been  exploded  by  prac- 
tice, he  can  still  claim  that  they  were  good. 

On  the  true  question  Judge  Lindsay's  objection  to  Roose- 
velt and  Taft  is  not  that  they  have  tried  to  do  too  little,  but 
too  much,  claiming  that  the  National  Government  has  only 
power  to  regulate  when  corporations  engage  in  interstate 
commerce.  In  regard  to  his  suggestion  to  put  all  trust-made 
and  trust-used  articles  on  the  free  list,  such  action  would  injure 
the  weak  along  with  the  strong,  and  would  be  found  almost 
impossible  of  practical  application.  Probably  most  of  the 
largest  trusts  would  not  be  at  all  affected  by  it. 

Having  discussed  the  points  made  by  Judge  Lindsay 
against  Judge  Taft,  we  shall  now  very  briefly  give  a  few 
reasons  why  we  oppose  Mr.  Bryan. 

First,  we  believe  he  is  Populistic  and  Socialistic  in  his 
tendencies  and  sympathies,  and  we  judge  him  not  by  the  plat- 
form which  was  made  to  catch  votes,  but  by  his  previous  ut- 
terances which  are  more  important,  as  they  reveal  the  real 
man.  As  illustration  of  this,  we  refer  to  his  governmental 
ownership  of  railroads,  his  initiative  and  referendum,  his 
election  of  Senators  by  popular  vote,  his  governmental  guar- 
antee of  bank  deposits,  his  effort  to  weaken  the  power  of  the 
courts  to  punish  for  contempt,  and  thereby  protect  the  rights 
of  person  and  property,  and  his  ceaseless  efforts  to  array  capi- 
tal and  labor  against  each  other. 

Secondly,  we  believe  his  election  threatens  the  business 
stability  and  prosperity  of  the  country.  In  1896  Mr.  Bryan 
was  a  vehement  and  enthusiastic  advocate  of  the  free  silver 

[  120  ] 


program,  making  it  substantially  the  sole  issue  of  the  canvass, 
and  he  claimed  that  the  most  disastrous  and  direct  results 
would  follow  its  defeat.  He  uttered  all  sorts  of  silly  and  fal- 
lacious prophecies  of  what  would  take  place  in  case  of  the 
defeat  of  his  predominant  issue,  all  of  which  were  proven 
false  by  events.  Mr.  Bryan,  like  a  good  many  others  who 
have  never  studied  political  economy  and  sociology  or  only 
superficially,  is  pervaded  mentally  by  a  governmental  Fiatism 
or  a  supernatural  belief  in  the  efficacy  of  governmental  say-so, 
that  vitiates  all  his  opinions  on  business  questions  and  ren- 
ders them  entirely  untrustworthy.  From  our  past  experience 
of  him,  we  have  no  confidence  in  his  judgment  of  financial 
and  social  questions,  and  should  he  be  elected  President,  we 
very  much  fear  that  emergencies  would  arise,  that  he  could 
not,  as  President,  wisely  meet. 

In  case  of  such  a  situation  as  arose  in  Cleveland's  second 
administration,  when  in  order  to  sustain  gold  payments,  it 
was  necessary  to  sell  bonds  for  gold,  what  would  Mr.  Bryan 
do?  We  assume  from  his  criticism  of  Cleveland  and  Car- 
lisle that  he  would  not  do  as  they  did.  To  minds  of  men 
trained  in  finance  and  business  the  disastrous  consequences  of 
such  action  would  be  tremendous.  Again,  under  similar  cir- 
cumstances to  those  of  1896,  would  Mr.  Bryan  in  the  next 
four  years  still  favor  the  free  and  unlimited  coinage  of  sil- 
ver? As  he  has  stated  that  a  question  is  never  settled  until  it 
is  settled  right;  and  as  he  has  never  in  the  slightest  degree 
recanted,  we  certainly  presume  that  he  would. 

It  has  been  Mr.  Bryan's  extreme  good  luck,  as  Governor 
Hughes  of  New  York  so  well  says,  that  his  wild  and  vision- 
ary views  of  the  last  twelve  years  have  not  been  practically 
tested.  Had  they  been  put  in  force,  their  calamitous  and  dis- 
astrous consequences  would  have  completely  eliminated  Mr. 
Bryan  from  public  notice.  The  probability  of  conditions  be- 
coming under  the  hypothetical  Presidency  of  Mr.  Bryan, 
similar  to  those  of  1896,  would  be  very  great,  as  his  election 
and  occupancy  of  the  position  would  so  disturb  business  as  to 

C  121  ] 


practically  bring  about  a  situation  at  least  as  bad,  if  not  very 
much  worse,  than  that  of  1896. 

Again,  the  views  of  Mr.  Bryan  in  regard  to  the  regula- 
tion of  corporations  are  fraught  with  immense  danger  to  the 
business  world.  In  one  of  his  speeches  after  his  return  from 
Europe,  he  said  that  the  man  who  spoke  of  regulating  the 
trusts  (and  he  has  never  clearly  defined  them,  and  the  fair 
inference  is  that  he  means  all  large  corporations)  was  the 
enemy  of  the  people,  and  that  instead  of  being  regulated 
they  should  be  destroyed.  The  makeshift  and  the  compro- 
mises of  the  platform  are  a  little  different,  but  we  consider 
Mr.  Bryan's  real  views  more  important.  An  effort  to  carry 
out  these  views  of  Mr.  Bryan  would  cause  widespread  dis- 
aster, and  long  continued  depression  to  the  business  world. 
Business  interests  are  so  complicated  and  interwoven  that  any 
disaster  to  a  large  class  of  business  would  finally  involve  the 
whole  financial  fabric  in  depression  and  ruin. 

It  is  right  here  that  the  interests  of  labor  are  most  con- 
cerned. The  law  of  supply  and  demand  applies  to  labor  as 
to  all  other  things,  and  the  demand  for  labor  can  only  be 
great  and  wages  high  when  prosperity  is  general  and  capital 
fully  employed  as  a  wages  fund  and  not  intimidated  and  driv- 
en to  cover.  We  take  it  that  labor  is  more  vitally  concerned 
in  the  prosperity  of  the  business  world  than  any  other  class. 
While  it  may  be  very  well,  if  this  point  of  prosperity  is  as- 
sured, for  labor  to  gain  such  other  points  in  its  favor  as  are 
not  harmful  in  principle,  still  it  is  much  better  to  secure  pros- 
perity, good  wages  and  continuous  employment,  than  to  risk 
all  these  in  order  to  be  slightly  aided,  if  at  all,  in  a  strike,  by 
breaking  down  the  power  of  the  courts  to  efficiently  protect 
the  rights  of  person  and  property. 

In  consideration  of  these  points  we  think  all  conserva- 
tive men,  both  business  men  and  laborers,  should  vote  for 
Taft. 

Judge  Lindsay  congratulates  himself  and  the  party  upon 
a  reunited  Democracy  under  Bryan  as  its  leader.  We  grant 

[  122  ] 


that  a  good  many  gold  Democrats  are  now  supporting  the 
Bryan  ticket.  Among  these  are  included  a  good  many  news- 
papers who  do  so,  in  many  instances,  from  business  necessity, 
their  subscribers  being  principally  so-called  regular  Demo- 
crats. Also  there  are  a  good  many  politicians,  who  cannot 
longer  stand  the  strain  put  on  them  by  principle  and  patriot- 
ism, without  any  hope  of  office  to  brace  them  up.  Also,  no 
doubt  there  are  many  who  from  their  standpoint  are  doing 
their  duty — for  among  intelligent  men  there  are  different 
points  of  view — and  lastly,  there  are  a  good  many  who 
thoughtlessly  or  indifferently  drift  with  the  current. 

On  the  other  hand  there  is  a  great  band  of  independent 
thinkers  and  solid  business  men,  who  do  not  seek  office,  but 
are  solely  interested  in  the  good  of  the  country.  Men,  who 
consider  party  not  as  an  end  in  itself,  but  only  as  a  means  to 
good  government.  These  men  do  not  have  any  confidence  in 
Mr.  Bryan,  but  from  their  past  experience  of  him  believe  him 
a  dangerous  and  socialistic  agitator,  whose  election  threatens 
great  disaster  to  our  country,  and  they  do  not  propose  to  be 
Bryanized  and  give  up  life-long  opinions  and  convictions  for 
the  sake  of  a  name  that  no  longer  means  Democracy  as  they 
have  been  taught  it. 


SPEECH  ON  THE  TOBACCO  QUESTION,  MADE 
AT  PARIS,  AUGUST  2d,  1909. 

I  speak  with  reluctance  on  account  of  my  physical  condi- 
tion, but  am  impelled  to  do  so  by  force  of  conscientious  con- 
viction and  the  gravity  of  the  situation.  I  believe  that  the 
movement,1  at  least  as  far  as  white  Burley  is  concerned,  has 
been  based  upon  a  wholesale  misrepresentation  and  exaggera- 
tion of  the  facts  in  the  case,  the  speakers  for  the  Equity  being 
mainly  politicians  and  not  tobacco  raisers,  giving  hearsay  and 
imaginary  figures  and  statements  which,  on  account  of  the 
widespread  intimidation,  have  not  been  answered  and  cor- 
rected by  those  who  knew  better.  In  fact,  nearly  all  their 
prominent  speakers  of  the  last  two  years,  who  seemed  to  be 
so  enthused  with  love  of  the  farmer  and  tobacco  raiser,  were, 
in  fact,  as  the  result  proved,  simply  running  for  Congress.  In 
this  campaign  the  speakers  are,  or  have  been,  the  salaried  em- 
ployees and  officers  of  the  society. 

There  is  no  commodity  about  which  misrepresentation  is 
easier  than  tobacco;  the  prices  of  different  grades  vary  great- 
ly and  the  prices  of  the  same  grade  vary  at  different  times. 
Also  the  price  varies  greatly  as  between  heavy  winter  order 
and  summer  order;  so  at  any  time  by  comparing  the  sale  of 


me    uouri    nouse    in    rans    at    a    meeting   ot 
reposed    by    the    Kquity    to    pool    the    1909   crop 


[  125  ] 


low  grades  with  high  grades,  or  the  same  tobacco  at  different 
times  of  the  year,  a  person  may  honestly  be  greatly  deceived, 
and  how  much  more  so,  when  there  may  be  an  intention  to 
deceive  and  the  reign  of  terror  prevents  any  reply. 

As  far  as  I  can  ascertain,  and  I  have  taken  much  pains  to 
ascertain,  the  average  price  and  the  conditions  of  the  farm- 
ers and  tenants  have  been  grossly  misrepresented  by  the 
Equity  orators.  I,  myself,  have  been  a  tobacco  raiser  for 
sixteen  or  seventeen  years,  growing  each  year  several  crops  in 
partnership  with  tenants.  To  give  the  devil  his  due,  candor 
compels  me  to  state  that  I  did  not  do  well  with  tobacco  until 
the  Continental  Company  commenced  to  buy  in  this  locality, 
not  in  any  instance  getting  over  eight  cents,  and  generally 
far  less,  for  my  tobacco.  So  much  were  we  discouraged  that 
we  turned  two  of  our  barns  into  cattle  barns;  but  since  then 
we  have  averaged  over  ten  cents  for  our  tobacco,  have  made 
big  profit  on  our  land  and  our  tenants  have  done  equally  as 
well,  making  two  or  three  times  as  much  as  they  could  have 
made  in  other  business. 

We  will  give  a  detailed  statement  of  prices  later.  Our 
tobacco  was  sold  generally  in  the  first  half  of  January  in  our 
own  barns,  in  heavy  winter  order,  delivered  at  some  near 
point  without  any  expense  whatever,  except  the  slight  one  of 
hauling,  and  the  payment  was  made  immediately.  Now,  as 
one  case  does  not  make  a  rule,  I  have  faithfully  tried  to  find 
out  prices  received  by  others.  My  neighbors  have  generally 
done  as  well  as  myself,  and  some  a  good  deal  better.  One 
tenant  in  the  far  end  of  the  county  has  raised  twelve  crops, 
and  nine  cents  was  the  least  price  and  twelve  cents  the  highest 
he  received.  Upon  the  most  reliable  information  we  can  get 
from  original  sources — and  in  our  anxiety  to  be  accurate  and 
do  justice  we  applied  to  the  Continental  for  its  figures  in 
Bourbon  County — I  estimate  that  for  the  last  five  or  six 
years  the  average  price  for  our  county  has  been  about  nine 
cents  per  pound,  and  the  most,  far  more  than  half,  of  this 
tobacco  was  sold  in  barn  and  hauled  in  loose  order,  without 

[  126  ] 


other  expense,  to  some  near-by  receiving  point.  Finally,  I 
can  truly  say  that  no  business  in  this  section  has  ever  before 
been  as  profitable  to  the  farmer  and  tenant  as  tobacco  raising 
for  the  period  of  the  last  six  or  eight  years.  As  a  matter  of 
course  there  are  some  improvident  men  who  save  nothing 
however  much  they  may  make;  but  I  assert  that  on  land  in 
any  way  suitable  for  tobacco  the  tenant  has  done  far  better 
than  he  could  have  done  at  any  other  business,  and  that 
tobacco  land  has  paid  the  landlord,  after  charging  up  all 
expenses,  from  $50  to  $85  per  acre,  and  in  like  proportion 
the  tenant. 

In  a  speech  made  here  on  this  rostrum  eighteen  months 
ago  opposing  the  cutting  out  of  the  1908  crop,  I  stated  that 
the  facts,  when  truly  understood,  did  not  justify  the  pooling 
of  the  crop,  and  the  only  justification  of  the  pooling  of  the 
crop  was  such  a  condition  of  the  tobacco  business  as  made 
pooling  necessary  in  order  to  get  a  living  price;  that  as  the 
Burley  Society  was  organized,  its  members  scattered  through 
many  counties,  and  even  states,  with  every  possible  dissimilar- 
ity of  condition,  financial  and  otherwise,  it  was  utterly  im- 
possible for  them  to  act  without  friction,  delay,  negligence 
and  favoritism,  and  that  many  and  unexpected  abuses  would 
surely  grow  up.  I  stated  that  cutting  out  the  1908  crop 
threatened  the  peace  and  prosperity  of  the  state;  that,  as  it 
was  a  fact  that  not  over  half  at  most  of  the  growers  were  in 
the  pool,  and  that  in  order  to  make  the  movement  of  the  mere 
cutting  of  the  crop  succeed,  the  remaining  50  per  cent,  of 
growers  would  have  to  be  persuaded  and  intimidated;  that  it 
would  be  impossible  for  them  to  agree  upon  such  a  policy  on 
account  of  dissimilarity  of  opinions,  conditions  and  necessi- 
ties, some  being  able  to  hold  their  tobacco,  some  having  to 
mortgage  their  crop  before  it  was  raised,  and  others  in  condi- 
tions too  numerous  to  mention.  Such  agreement  being  im- 
possible, it  then  becomes  necessary,  in  order  to  succeed,  for 
various  kinds  of  intimidation  to  be  resorted  to,  mild  and 
peaceful  and  law-abiding,  but  soon  degenerating  into  vio- 

[   127  ] 


lence  and  lawlessness  by  the  more  ignorant  and  less  restrained 
members  of  the  pool. 

I  stated  then,  eighteen  months  ago,  that  any  policy  that 
tended  directly  or  indirectly,  intentionally  or  unintentionally, 
to  violence  and  lawlessness,  was  to  be  condemned  by  all  just- 
minded  and  patriotic  persons.  All  our  rights  of  life,  liberty 
and  property  are  based  upon  and  made  good  by  the  enforce- 
ment of  the  law;  and  I  could  not  see  how  any  man,  who  is 
interested  in  the  solid  and  true  interests  of  the  country,  could 
countenance  any  policy  that  leads  even  indirectly,  but  in  this 
case  inevitably,  to  violence  and  disorder.  Violence  and  dis- 
order, when  once  begun,  breed  numerous  broods  of  progeny 
which  not  only  affect  the  tobacco  business,  but  every  other  in- 
terest of  society;  and  no  man  may  see  the  end  of  such  feuds 
thus  created. 

In  addition  to  the  above,  I  said  at  the  same  time,  eighteen 
months  ago,  that,  if  the  cutting  out  of  the  crop  was  effected, 
there  would  be  three  important  results:  First,  it  would  en- 
courage the  raising  of  tobacco  in  other  sections  of  the  coun- 
try beyond  the  influence  and  intimidation  of  the  Equity 
Society;  and  there  were  various  parts  of  the  country  where  it 
could  and  would,  in  many  cases  of  extra  quality,  in  all  proba- 
bility be  raised,  and  we  could  do  our  tobacco  interests  here  in 
Kentucky  incalculable  damage  by  raising  up  formidable  and 
dangerous  competition  by  this  short-sighted  policy. 

Now,  what  was  the  result?  All  that  I  spoke  of  as  pos- 
sible has  come  to  pass,  and  this  year's  crop  will  be  hard  to 
sell  on  account  of  the  great  increase  of  tobacco  outside  of  our 
old  Burley  district. 

Secondly,  I  stated  that  the  policy  of  the  Burley  Society 
would  drive  out  of  the  state  many  of  our  tenants  and  the  men 
employed  by  them,  a  great  and  undeserved  hardship  upon 
them.  By  permitting  them  to  raise  tobacco,  a  business  in 
which  they  were  very  proficient  and  could  earn  two  or  three 
times  as  much  as  in  any  other  business,  a  small  quantity  of 
land  relatively  could  support  a  large  number  of  them,  while 

[  128  ] 


if  they  were  forced  to  raise  corn  or  other  crops  it  would  re- 
quire several  times  the  number  of  acres  to  allow  them  the 
same  profit,  so  that  necessarily  many  would  be  forced  to 
leave.  Everybody  knows  that  such  was  the  result. 

Thirdly,  I  stated  that  it  would  bring  on  disorder  and  law- 
lessness throughout  the  Burley  district.  Such  prediction  has 
been  amply  verified.  Brutal  whippings,  barn-burning  and  all 
sorts  of  outrages  and  even  murder  have  been  committed  with 
impunity.  All  free  speech  on  this  question  has  been  practi- 
cally denied;2  and  any  statement  of  Equity  orators,  however 
exaggerated  or  wild,  has  gone  without  any  public  denial  or 
refutation,  such  impunity  adding  to  the  exaggeration  and 
misrepresentation  of  such  statements. 

Now  from  this  date  on  I  hope  it  will  be  very  different. 
Let  us  see  what  are  the  financial  results  of  pooling  the  1906 
and  1907  crops,  leaving  out  of  account  for  the  present  all  the 
other  disastrous  results  of  which  I  shall  presently  speak.  Of 
the  1907  crop,  giving  way  to  the  desires  of  two  of  my  ten- 
ants in  Bourbon  County,  we  placed  two  crops,  comprising 
twenty-four  acres  and  thirty-three  hogsheads,  in  the  pool, 
three  other  tenants  not  going  into  it.  Nothing  is  so  deceptive 
as  tobacco  prices  unless  you  know  all  the  conditions  and  cir- 
cumstances. Twenty-seven  hogsheads  of  this  tobacco  has 
been  sold  and  90  per  cent,  of  the  price  paid  us,  and  putting 
the  other  hogsheads  at  average  price,  the  whole  will  average 
16.59  cents  per  pound.  Now  let  us  see  what  it  will  be  when 
the  proper  reductions  are  made.  I  have  heretofore,  for  the 
last  eight  years,  usually  sold  my  tobacco  in  the  first  half  of 
January  in  heavy  winter  order  in  my  barn,  with  the  only  ex- 
pense of  hauling  it  in  loose  order  to  be  delivered  at  some 
near  point;  and  I  shall  compare  prices  upon  the  basis  of  sell- 
ing tobacco  as  usual  to  be  delivered  the  i5th  of  January.  As 


1  In  a  further  discussion  of  this  subject  it  is  said:  "I  wrote  in  February,  1908, 
a  moderate  and  conservative  article  on  the  tobacco  question,  but  was  advised  by 
discreet  friends  to  whom  I  showed  it  that  it  would  be  foolhardy  and  unwise  to 
attempt  to  publish  it.  Mr.  Clift  of  Mason  had  the  manhood  and  audacity  to  answer 
one  of  M —  — 's  numerous  effusions,  and  the  next  night,  so  the  newspapers 

stated,  his  tobacco-bed  was  scraped  and  a  grave  dug  as  a  warning  to  him  to  forbear." 

[  129  ] 


I  was  very  anxious  to  be  fair  and  right  about  this  matter  I 
showed  my  figures  to  the  president  of  the  Bourbon  Equity 
Society,  and  he  could  make  no  valid  objection  to  them.  I  do 
not  wish  to  speak  for  the  hour,  but  for  tomorrow  and  the 
hereafter,  and  do  not  wish  to  take  any  advantage  of  the 
Society.  I  owned  a  third  of  this  tobacco : 

THIRTY-THREE    HOGSHEADS    AND   TWENTY-FOUR   ACRES    IN    POOL    OF 

1907    CROP. 

Sold  27  hogsheads,  my  third  received    $1,395.13 

Not  sold,  6  hogsheads,  my  third  put  at  average  price.  .         318.02 


Total  received  and  estimated $1,713.15 

LIST  OF   EXPENSES. 

Insurance  three  times  on  one- third  $1.50  for  four 

months $45.00 

Prizing  October  15,  1908,  12,200  Ibs.  at  50c. 

per  cwt 61.00 

Storage  at  price  fixed  by  Equity,  25c.  per  month 

on  11  hogsheads  for  13  months  35.75 

Interest  on  the  above  3  items  until  repaid  by  sale 

of  tobacco,  underestimated 3.00 


Total  amount  of  expense 144.75 


Leaves  after  paying  these  expenses $1,568.40 

Interest  at  6  per  cent,  on  capital  held  in  tobacco  from 

January  15,  1908,  to  May  15,  1909 $116.18 

$1,568.40  minus  $116.18,  the  value  Jan.  15,  1908 1,452.22 

One-third  of  24  acres  equals  8  acres 1,452.22 

One  acre    181.50 

Whatever  may  be  received  from  10  per  cent,  reserve  fund 
to  be  added. 

What  my  tobacco  brought  in  previous  years  early  in  Jan- 
uary, in  the  average : 

[   130  ] 


1902—10.40  per  Ib. ;  per  acre $180.77 

1903—10  plus  per  Ib. ;  per  acre 209.97 

1904 — 11*^  and  12J/2  per  Ib. ;  per  acre,  3  crops  average 

$218.09,  and  2  crops  $250.00 228.72 

1905—6^  to  9}4  per  Ib.;  per  acre,  3  crops  $165.28,  and  1 

crop  $95.46 141.95 

1906 — 10^4  per  Ib. ;  per  acre,  3  crops  $174.77,  and  2  crops 

$176.34  175.39 

1907—1 1 y4  per  Ib. ;  per  acre,  3  crops 228.47 

Average  for  1902,  1903  and  1904 206.39 

What  did  the  pooled  crop,  which  sold  at  $16.59,  bring 
January  15,  1908,  the  time  I  generally  sell? 

In  October  an  acre  weighed   1,522^/2  Ibs. 

An  acre  weighed  January  15,   1908   (estimated) 1,800       Ibs. 

Price,  January   15,   1908    10.08  cts. 

REMARKS  ON  CALCULATION. 

The  pool  and  crop  was  composed  of  one  crop  of  eighteen 
hogsheads  of  strictly  No.  i  quality,  better  than  that  sold 
for  i2l/2  cents,  or  $250.00  an  acre  in  1904,  being  raised  by 
same  parties,  and  the  balance  of  fifteen  hogsheads  was  a  fair 
crop  of  sound  tobacco  and  good  weight.  The  calculation  of 
money  received  and  expenses  that  were  legitimate,  and  com- 
parison of  January  15,  1908,  with  final  value,  were  shown 
the  Burley  president  for  Bourbon  County.  Now,  I  claim 
that,  if  no  part  of  the  reserve  fund  is  paid,  this  tobacco  that 
sold  for  16.59  cents  in  the  pool  only  nets  10.08  cents  on  the 
1 5th  of  January,  1908,  and  also  that  this  reduction  of  nomi- 
nal value  not  only  refers  to  my  crop,  but  to  every  crop  in  the 
pool,  whether  in  the  Blue  Grass  or  elsewhere,  and  that  ever}7 
crop  should  be  legitimately  charged  with  the  same  percentage 
of  expenses.  It  makes  no  difference  whether  the  owner  him- 
self furnishes  all  or  a  part  of  these  items  of  expense,  or  he 
gets  somebody  else  to  do  so;  and  I  defy  anyone  to  show  that 
they  are  not  equitable  and  necessary  charges  to  be  made  in 

[   131   ] 


any  correct  calculation.  I  have  also  a  calculation  made  in  a 
bill  made  out  by  the  Equity  on  a  1906  crop  in  the  pool.  This 
crop  of  3,120  pounds  was  appraised,  when  delivered  to  the 
Equity,  at  17.30  cents  per  pound,  or  $540.67.  The  expenses 
charged  by  the  Equity  amounted  to  enough  to  leave  the  net 
amount  to  the  owner  $383.38.  This  tobacco  was  delivered 
to  the  Equity,  February  25,  1907,  and  paid  for  at  the  end  of 
two  years,  so  far  as  I  can  determine  from  the  account.  Dis- 
counting $383.38  for  two  years,  and  it  equals  $342.30, 
which  equals  about  10.9  cents  per  pound.  In  this  case  all  the 
reserve  but  114  cents  was  paid.  So  you  can  see  how  decep- 
tive the  figures  of  the  Equity  are  and  how  they  give  false  im- 
pressions of  value. 

Now,  in  regard  to  our  pooled  tobacco,  after  making  the 
proper  reductions,  it  amounts  to  only  $181.50  per  acre,  or 
about  10.08  cents  per  pound,  to  be  increased  by  any  part  of 
reserve  that  may  be  paid.  As  compared  with  other  years, 
the  average  price  per  acre  is  a  great  deal  less  than  the  aver- 
age for  the  years  1904,  1903  and  1902 — that  average  being 
$206.39.  These  three  years  were  before  any  pool  had  been 
formed,  the  first  pool  being  on  the  1906  crop.  It  is  also  a 
good  deal  less  than  the  average  for  the  six  years  of  1902  to 
1907. 

This  calculation  reveals  another  thing,  that  out  of  thirty- 
three  hogsheads,  six  have  not  been  sold  and  paid  for.  In 
general  figures  I  have  been  told  by  the  officers  of  the  associa- 
tion that  there  were  about  60,000  hogsheads  in  the  1907 
pool.  Three-fourths  of  this  was  to  go  to  the  Continental, 
which  paid  promptly,  and  one-fourth  to  the  Independents. 
Now,  instead  of  calling  at  least  for  twenty-four  hogsheads  of 
our  tobacco,  they  asked  for  twenty-three,  leaving  back  ten, 
instead  of  nine  hogsheads,  as  they  should.  Then,  I  under- 
stand, there  were  about  4,400  hogsheads  allotted  to  the  Inde- 
pendents, who  failed  to  take  it.  On  this  basis  not  over  three 
hogsheads  of  ours  should  have  been  left  on  hand  unsold,  in- 
stead of  six. 

C  132  ] 


I  have  in  the  last  eight  years  delivered  my  tobacco,  and 
always  immediately  received  payment.  This  pooled  tobacco 
was  sold  last  October  or  November,  and  yet  not  paid  for.  If 
I  should  individually  have  sold  my  tobacco  last  fall  and  not 
yet  received  payment  for  it,  I  think  my  friends  should  apply 
to  the  court  to  have  me  declared  incapable  of  attending  to  my 
business  and  to  have  a  trustee  appointed  to  take  charge  of  it. 

Notice  one  more  thing  about  the  calculation :  That  my 
tenants  who  did  not  go  into  the  1907  pool  got  more  for  their 
tobacco  than  those  that  did.  Now,  as  we  have  shown  that 
financially  the  pool  was  no  such  success  as  claimed  for  it,  let 
us  see  what  are  the  other  results  of  the  society's  policy.  In 
the  first  place,  by  cutting  out  the  1908  crop  we  have  lost  all 
profit  that  would  have  come  from  that  crop,  and  the  labor 
that  would  have  produced  it  is  to  a  great  extent  thrown  out 
of  employment,  and  in  many  instances  forced  to  leave  the 
state.  Secondly,  we  have  driven  our  largest  and  best  buyer 
out  of  the  state.  The  Continental  Company  had  established 
warehouses  at  our  county  seats,  so  we  could  sell  them  our 
tobacco  at  home  without  the  uncertainty  and  expense  of  ship- 
ping to  far-off  markets.  They  have  sold  out  their  property 
and  left  the  state,  so  far  as  I  know.  I  was  talking  the  other 
day  with  one  of  our  best  farmers,  and  asked  him  if  he  had 
sold  his  grass  seed  by  the  territory  ungathered.  He  replied 
that,  as  he  had  a  son  old  enough  to  learn  business,  he  could 
not  afford  to  do  so  for  fear  that  his  son  might  do  the  same 
way.  He  was  wise.  Exercise  develops  faculty.  The  only 
way  to  keep  up  the  character  of  our  people  in  judgment,  self- 
reliance  and  manhood  is  to  give  them  the  opportunity  to  exer- 
cise these  qualities.  By  turning  over  our  business  to  a  commit- 
tee of  managers,  or  maybe  to  one  boss,  as  this  new  pledge  in- 
dicates, we  tend  to  make  babies  and  weaklings  of  our  people. 
There  is  no  more  certain  and  surer  entering  wedge  to  social- 
ism or  communism.  Another  evil  result  of  this  Equity  move- 
ment has  been  a  substantial  denial  of  free  speech.  Any  policy 
must  be  fundamentally  unsound  that  demands  as  one  of  its 

[  133  ] 


necessities  the  suppression  of  free  speech.  Our  colleges, 
schools  and  our  various  means  of  cultivating  the  mind  are  all 
intended  to  teach  us  to  think  for  ourselves.  In  the  conflict  of 
reasonable  debate  and  discussion  error  is  gradually  elimi- 
nated, and  truth  evoluted  and  strengthened.  Any  cause  that 
will  not  submit  to  this  test  thereby  confesses  its  weakness  and 
unsoundness.  Again,  the  policy  of  the  Burley  trust  or  society 
has  very  much  increased  the  production  of  tobacco  outside  of 
our  Burley  district.  Reports  from  Missouri,  Illinois,  Indiana, 
Ohio,  West  Virginia,  Tennessee  and  also  the  outlying  coun- 
ties of  Kentucky,  all  speak  of  much  increased  production.  The 
tenants  and  workers  that  you  drove  out  last  year  are  valuable 
assistants  in  this  development.  The  extravagant  figures  of 
the  Equity  orators  in  regard  to  prices  have,  no  doubt,  very 
much  aided  this  movement.  The  hen  that  laid  the  golden 
eggs  has  been  badly  crippled,  if  not  killed.  Again,  whether 
intended  or  not,  they  have  produced  a  crop  of  violence  and 
lawlessness  which  has  brought  shame  and  humiliation  on 
every  patriotic  Kentuckian  as  well  as  financial  disaster,  and 
which  crop,  I  fear,  may  be  perennial  unless  we  arouse  our- 
selves to  a  full  realization  of  the  situation  and  determine  to 
take  the  necessary  measures  to  extirpate  it.  The  only  reason 
why  Bourbon  County  and  a  few  other  counties  have  escaped 
the  most  of  this  lawlessness  has  been  the  forbearance  of  the 
independent  tobacco  growers,  and  their  refusal  to  exercise 
their  legal  rights  in  the  control  of  their  property  and  business. 
The  Equity  men  were  their  friends  and  neighbors,  and  for 
once  they  were  willing  to  help  them  out  of  the  hole  into  which 
their  policy  had  placed  them.  The  Equity  has  even  prosti- 
tuted, or  attempted  to  prostitute,  the  legislation  of  the  state 
by  special  acts  to  carry  out  their  purposes  of  domination  and 
despotism.  By  one  bill  they  made  a  breach  of  contract  a 
misdemeanor,  in  order  to  control  with  a  rod  of  iron  their  own 
refractory  members.  By  the  McChord  bill — one  of  the 
worst  measures  ever  presented  to  a  Kentucky  legislature — 
they  provided  that  no  person  or  corporation  could  buy  to- 

[   134  ] 


bacco  in  Kentucky  unless  licensed  to  do  so  by  a  certain  official 
or  officials  who,  as  a  matter  of  course,  were  to  be  elected  in 
the  interests  of  the  Equity,  or,  if  not  elected,  to  be  so  influ- 
enced. Every  instinct  of  statesmanship  and  enlightenment  was 
against  this  bill.  What  we  need  is  more  buyers,  not  fewer. 
If  we  had  our  choice,  it  would  be  much  better  to  give  a  bounty 
to  buyers  instead  of  putting  an  embargo  upon  them.  This 
bill,  founded  in  folly  and  bigotry,  was  supported  by  the 
Equity  Society  and  was  personally  urged  by  them  upon  the 
legislature,  but  after  passing  the  House,  was  defeated  by  the 
hardest  of  work  in  the  Senate.  Any  man  who  did  not  sup- 
port this  bill  was  denounced  as  an  enemy  of  the  fanner  and, 
in  the  reign  of  terror,  many  were  intimidated. 

Now,  how  shall  we  sell  without  the  pool?  I  admit  that 
the  Equity  has  made  the  conditions  hard.  If,  as  the  Equity 
claims,  the  Continental  has  been  making  enormous  profits, 
and  this  claim  the  government's  investigation  supports  in 
part,  then  this  very  fact — and  especially  for  the  future,  since 
the  government  has  established  a  sufficient  amount  of  the 
fact — is  the  best  guarantee  and  security  that  the  Continental 
will  have  competition  in  buying  tobacco.  There  is  no  natural 
monopoly  in  manufacturing  tobacco.  With  the  great  amount 
of  capital  in  this  country,  seeking  investment  at  low  rates  of 
interest,  competition  will  spring  up  like  the  water  in  some 
great  and  everlasting  fountain,  whose  flowing  is  rather  in- 
creased than  diminished  by  drawing  the  water  from  it.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  we  have  had  more  or  less  competition  for  the 
last  six  or  eight  years  since  the  Continental  commenced  buy- 
ing in  the  country,  sufficient  at  least  to  give  us  very  profitable 
prices  for  our  tobacco  during  that  period.  For  about  half  of 
that  time  we  have  sold  to  the  Independents.  Should  tobacco 
get  too  low,  growers  on  land  not  suitable  for  tobacco,  where 
the  cost  of  production  is  relatively  high — and  this  would  in- 
clude probably  a  good  deal  of  the  new  territory — will  quit 
raising  and  thus  reduce  the  supply  and  increase  the  price.  If 
tobacco  were  to  sell  too  high,  so  that  the  consumption  at  the 

[  135  ] 


price  would  not  take  up  the  supply  raised,  then  the  accumulat- 
ing surplus  would  be  a  weight  to  finally  break  down  the  mar- 
ket. A  fair  price  for  a  commodity  is  the  average  price  at 
which  consumption  or  the  demand  will  take  up  the  supply; 
if  the  price  is  too  high  or  too  low,  the  equalization  process  is 
bound  to  go  on.  "The  mills  of  the  gods  grind  slowly,  but 
exceeding  fine." 

These  forces,  embodying  the  law  of  supply  and  demand, 
work  without  cost  or  friction  or  violence  or  disorder.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  artificial  arrangement  of  the  Equity  works 
by  the  arbitrary  dictation  of  an  executive  committee  or  presi- 
dent, taking  a  man's  business  out  of  his  own  hands;  works 
with  all  sorts  of  costs  for  prizing,  insurance,  storage,  interest, 
shrinkage,  fees  and  salaries;  works  with  all  its  bulldozing  of 
individuals  and  attendant  violence  and  lawlessness.  Then, 
again,  as  a  further  means  of  protection  against  all  trusts,  the 
Continental,  as  well  as  the  Equity,  the  last,  however  well  in- 
tentioned  by  its  founders,  probably  the  worst  trust  we  have 
ever  had,  let  us  send  to  the  Legislature  and  to  Congress,  sen- 
sible, practical  men,  not  demagogues,  who  will  pass  reason- 
able laws  to  regulate  trusts.  Trust-regulation  is  a  very  com- 
plicated matter,  and  even  the  best  men  at  first  and  afterward 
will  make  mistakes,  but  let  them  profit  by  their  mistakes  and 
gradually,  as  taught  by  experience,  evolute  laws  that  will  ap- 
proximately accomplish  the  purpose.  Then  let  the  people 
elect  honest  and  fearless  executive  officers  to  enforce  the  law. 
But,  to  be  honest,  we  must  trust  mainly  to  the  law  of  supply 
and  demand. 

The  speakers  on  the  other  side,  in  regard  to  the  new  pool- 
ing pledge  for  the  1909  crop,  give  about  the  same  reasons  in 
defense  of  it  that  the  Czar  of  Russia  would  give  in  justifying 
his  refusal  to  grant  further  liberty  to  his  parliament  and  his 
people.  The  details  of  this  pledge  will,  no  doubt,  be  thor- 
oughly discussed  by  Mr.  Cantrill  of  the  Equity  Society. 

Now,  in  conclusion,  I  want  to  say  I  come  here  with  a 
good  many  handicaps  in  the  way  of  physical  condition  and 

[  136  ] 


voice,  but  I  come  solely,  if  I  know  myself,  in  a  spirit  of 
patriotism.  We  are  all  frail.  I  can  afford  to  speak  the  truth, 
for  I  want  nothing.  Mr.  Watterson  has  well  said  that  a  man 
is  only  a  free  man  when  he  wants  nothing.  My  mind  has 
been  oppressed  with  a  pall  of  apprehension  and  dread.  I  am 
afraid,  if  you  sign  this  pledge  and  form  this  pool,  that  with 
the  immense  growing  crop,  especially  a  large  part  of  it  beyond 
the  influence  of  the  Equity,  the  society  at  the  end  of  1909  will 
find  itself  in  exactly  the  same  situation  as  in  1908.  The  Con- 
tinental will  be  able  to  get  sufficient  tobacco  from  various 
sources  so  as  not  to  be  forced  to  buy. 

The  impunity  with  which  you  cut  out  the  1908  crop  will, 
when  you  get  again  in  the  hole,  encourage  you  to  use  the 
same  plan  again,  and  if  you  do,  though  I  am  a  man  of  peace 
and  law  and  will  try  to  prevent  any  infraction  of  either,  I  am 
sure  from  my  knowledge  of  human  nature  that  the  people  will 
not  again  submit  to  having  their  legal  and  constitutional  rights 
of  attending  to  their  own  business  in  their  own  way  denied 
them.  The  dreadful  result  of  this  conflict  no  man  can  pre- 
dict. That  this  apprehension  is  not  chimerical  is  strength- 
ened by  the  fact  that  the  new  pledge  provides  for  a  perma- 
nent organization  in  the  way  of  a  stock  company,  with  highly 
paid  officials  as  a  matter  of  course,  whose  self-interest  will 
urge  continuous  activity,  and  who  will  very  much  increase  the 
probability  of  the  society's  resorting  to  any  means  to  avoid 
failure  in  their  despotic  plans.  This  apprehension,  more 
than  any  question  of  price,  has  actuated  me  to  come  here  to- 
day. 

Law  and  order,  peace  and  good  will,  and  the  protection 
of  our  rights  of  life,  liberty  and  property  are  above  price. 


FURTHER  DISCUSSION,  AN  ANSWER  TO 
JUDGE  O'REAR. 

From  the  Lexington  Herald,  Fall  of  igoQ. 

We  have  made  only  one  speech  on  the  tobacco  question 
and  it  has  served  as  a  text  for  criticism  and  reply  from  the 
various  speakers  and  writers  in  favor  of  the  Equity  Society. 
As  we  are  not  in  physical  condition  to  answer  on  the  stump, 
even  if  we  so  desired,  we  have  concluded  to  select  one  typical 
speech  of  Judge  O'Rear,  and  very  briefly  reply  to  its  main 
points.  We  choose  the  speech  or  speeches  of  Judge  O'Rear 
because  he  is  considered  by  the  Equity  men  as  their  strongest 
advocate.  Judge  O'Rear  depends  mainly  upon  two  points 
or  premises  in  his  argument.  First,  he  claims  that  the  area 
of  Burley  tobacco  cultivation  cannot  substantially  be  in- 
creased, and  that  we  will  always  control  the  supply.  Secondly, 
that  there  is  and  will  be  substantially  but  one  buyer,  the  Con- 
tinental Company.  From  these  two  premises  he  draws  the 
conclusion  that  by  pooling  we  can  control  the  market  and 
compel  the  one  buyer  to  give  what  we  demand.  Now  this 
argument  refers  only  to  the  financial  aspect  of  the  question 
and  ignores  all  social  and  moral  considerations,  a  matter  to 
which  we  shall  refer  later. 

In  regard  to  his  first  premise,  such  assertion  is  denied  by 
many  facts.  As  a  matter  of  course  any  extension  of  tobacco 
growing  has  to  take  place  gradually,  because  barns  have  to  be 
built  and  men  trained  to  cultivate  and  especially  to  handle 
the  tobacco.  I  claim,  however,  that  such  extension  is  taking 
place  as  fast  as  could  be  expected. 

A  very  reliable  gentleman,  an  old  citizen  of  Bourbon,  on 
a  visit  to  his  old  home,  says  that  sixty  new  tobacco  barns  have 
been  put  up  in  his  county  in  Missouri  this  year.  A  contract- 

[  139  ] 


ing  firm  reports  to  one  of  our  most  reputable  citizens  that 
they  have  put  102  new  barns  this  season  in  Western  Mis- 
souri. 

A  very  reliable  gentleman,  and  close  observer,  who  is 
thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  whole  tobacco  business,  and 
who  has  handled  the  Missouri  tobacco  for  several  years,  and 
who,  having  made  frequent  trips  to  Missouri,  is  well  and 
thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  situation  there,  says  that  he 
firmly  believes  that  Missouri  has  as  much  good  Burley  to- 
bacco land  as  has  Kentucky ;  that  the  quality  of  the  tobacco  is 
as  good  as  the  average  Kentucky  Burley  and  that  the  yield  is 
generally  higher.  The  only  reason  why  production  is  not 
vastly  greater  is  the  lack  of  barns  and  trained  men.  We  hear 
substantially  the  same  thing  from  all  the  surrounding  states, 
Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Tennessee  and  West  Virginia.  Even 
Alabama  is  sending  good  Burley  to  Louisville. 

In  regard  to  Judge  O'Rear's  second  point,  that  the  Con- 
tinental is  and  will  be  our  only  buyer,  while  there  are  not  as 
many  independent  manufacturing  companies  as  we  could 
wish — only  256  of  them — still  there  have  been  enough  to 
enable  us  to  get  good  prices  for  the  last  eight  years,  during 
which  time  we  made  far  more  profit  from  tobacco  than  from 
any  other  produce  of  our  land,  and  enough  in  all  probability 
to  insure  good  prices  in  the  future.  The  extensive  govern- 
mental investigation,  under  Garfield,  of  the  business  of  the 
Continental  and  the  Independents,  showing  the  amounts 
manufactured  of  each  grade,  the  cost,  selling  price  and  profits 
— all  showing  a  profitable  business — will  give  security  and 
confidence  to  the  formation  of  a  continuous  series  of  new 
companies  of  Independents  to  reap  profits  far  greater  than  in 
most  other  businesses. 

The  two  main  premises  of  Judge  O'Rear  are  therefore 
faulty  and  inaccurate  and,  necessarily,  his  conclusions,  how- 
ever logical  his  reasonings,  must  partake  of  the  same  defects 
probably  many  times  multiplied. 

Judge  O'Rear  speaks  like  a  man  not  well  acquainted  with 

[  140  ] 


the  practical  facts  of  the  tobacco  situation,  and  the  inherent 
weakness  of  such  a  pool  as  he  advocates.  Social  and  economic 
progress  does  not  take  place  by  abstract  reasoning,  but  by  the 
law  of  evolution,  a  continuous  and  gradual  adjustment  of  the 
"status  quo"  to  the  environment  of  new  conditions  as  they 
arise. 

A  pool  or  combination,  though  naturally  vicious  in  princi- 
ple, might  from  necessity  be  expedient  in  one  case,  and  not  in 
another,  but  the  burden  of  proof  is  always  against  it.  It 
might  be  economically  worked  without  moral  harm  in  some 
cases,  when  there  was  a  substantial  equality  of  conditions,  in- 
telligence and  limitation  of  members  in  numbers  and  terri- 
tory; and  might  work  very  badly  on  account  of  many  abuses, 
when  the  facts  are  the  reverse. 

So  after  all  it  is  not  a  question  of  theory  alone,  but  of 
practical  information  and  knowledge.  That  the  past  two 
pools  did  not  work  well,  and  were  comparatively  a  failure,  at 
least  in  our  district,  is  conclusively  shown  by  the  fact  of  the 
unwillingness  of  their  former  members  to  pool  their  present 
crop;  and  this  is  true,  although  the  greatest  pressure  by  the 
best  speakers  and  writers  has  been  exerted  upon  them  to  do 
so,  and  but  very  little  has  been  said  in  opposition.  A  great 
deal  of  money,  we  think,  has  in  this  way  been  illegally  spent 
by  the  Equity  Society. 

The  people  now  understand  that  the  so-called  "15  and  17 
cents  per  pound  of  the  pooled  tobacco"  means  only  10  or  n 
cents  at  the  time  the  tobacco  should  be  sold,  viz.,  when 
stripped  in  heavy  winter  order  and  when  free  of  the  expenses 
of  prizing,  shrinkage,  insurance,  storage,  interest,  bad  man- 
agement and  extravagance.  They  have  no  confidence  in  a 
management  which  spends,  as  they  believe,  their  money  ille- 
gally in  new  projects,  to  which  they  have  not  consented. 

They  have  no  confidence  in  the  impartiality  or  economy 
of  a  society  which,  they  believe,  so  acts.  The  same  sort  of 
recklessness,  they  think,  may  be  used  to  punish  the  enemies 
of  the  controlling  power,  or  to  reward  its  friends,  or  for  any 

[  141  ] 


other  purpose  in  the  handling  of  the  tobacco  of  the  new  pool. 

If  they  can  and  will,  as  we  believe,  illegally  spend  our 
money  now,  what  security  have  we  for  the  future  that  our 
property  rights  will  be  protected? 

Let  us  stop  here  for  a  moment  in  our  argument  and  see 
what  the  Equity  Society  intends  to  reserve  for  what  they  call 
the  cost  of  management.  Let  us  suppose  that  they  pay  80 
per  cent  of  the  10  per  cent  reserve  from  the  pool  of  1907. 

$3.00  per  hogshead  on  52,000  hogsheads  ( 1906) $156,000 

$3.00  per  hogshead  on  58,000  hogsheads  ( 1907) 174,000 

1^4  per  cent,  reserve  on  1906  crop   100,000 

2  per  cent,  reserve  on  gross  proceeds  (1907)  crop 204,000 

Thirty  cents  per  cwt.  on  1907  crop  received  from  buyers 

and  not  paid  growers 1 89,000 


Total   $823,000 

Amount  collected  from  1907  crop   $567,000 

The  above  is  an  estimate  based  mainly  upon  facts  gotten 
from  the  officers  of  the  society,  and  is  as  nearly  accurate  as 
we,  without  the  books,  can  make  it.  For  the  1907  crop  this 
amounts  to  $9.77  per  hogshead  sold,  not  counting  the  inspec- 
tion fee  of  $2.00  which  should  be  added.  The  amount  now 
on  hand  must  as  a  matter  of  course  approximately  be  the 
above  amount,  less  the  amount  of  salaries,  and  expenses  paid 
out  and  money  due  them  but  not  collected. 

The  point  we  make,  is  that  the  above  money  can  only  be 
used  for  the  benefit  of  the  pooled  crops  of  1906  and  1907, 
and  each  separately,  and  not  for  a  new  project  or  pool  to 
which  many  of  the  subscribers  of  these  two  pools  object. 

Let  us  now  very  briefly  review  the  social  and  moral  as- 
pects of  the  pool.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  just  as  bad  in  morals 
for  the  Equity  to  combine  to  raise  the  price  of  tobacco,  as  it 
is  for  the  Continental  to  conspire  to  lower  the  price  to  the 
farmer.  The  best  lawyers  with  whom  I  have  talked  believe, 
that  whenever  the  question  upon  its  merits  comes  before  the 


United  States  courts,  they  will  decide  that  the  Equity  is  an 
unlawful  combination. 

In  all  due  respect  to  and  faith  in  the  integrity  and  great 
ability  of  our  Kentucky  court,  the  Federal  courts  still  differ 
with  it  on  the  political  economy  of  their  decision.  The  judge 
who  wrote  the  decision  of  our  Kentucky  court,  in  discussing 
the  question,  substantially  said  (for  the  quotation  is  from 
memory)  :  "If  this  society  was  a  combination  to  raise  the  price 
or  value  of  tobacco,  then  this  combination  would  be  illegal; 
but  we  hold  that  it  is  not  a  combination  to  raise  the  price  of 
tobacco,  but  only  to  get  a  fair  price  for  it."  l 

Now  by  all  the  tenets  of  political  economy  as  agreed  to 
by  all  the  writers,  the  value  of  a  commodity  is  what  it  will 
bring  in  the  market,  and  there  is  no  other  test.  Any  other 
test  would  confound  intrinsic  with  commercial  value,  which 
last  is  the  only  one  recognized  by  trade,  commerce  and  the 
law. 

It  follows,  therefore,  that  any  combination  to  raise  the 
value  or  price  of  a  thing  above  its  then  market  value  is  a 
combination  to  raise  the  value  and  consequently  illegal. 

Judge  O'Rear  speaks  of  this  movement  to  form  a  pool 
as  involving  the  recognition  and  establishment  of  some  great 
principle  necessary  to  human  liberty  and  of  the  highest  patri- 
otic character;  when  in  fact  it  is  vicious  in  principle,  and  great 
outrages  upon  the  dearest  and  most  cherished  rights  of  men 
have  been  perpetrated  by  it  heretofore,  or  at  least  have  been 
its  inevitable  consequences. 

You  would  think  from  his  grandiloquent  references  to 
the  struggles  in  its  behalf,  comparing  them  with  those  of  the 
Revolution,  and  other  historic  struggles  for  the  liberty  of  the 
individual,  the  very  liberty  which  this  trust  has  ruthlessly 
violated,  that  some  necessary  principle  in  the  wise  extension 
of  human  rights  was  involved.  In  reality  it  is  only  a  fight  for 

1  "The  Legislature  could  not  enact  a  law  legalizing  a  pool  or  combination  of 
persons  for  the  purpose  of  enhancing  the  cost  of  any  article  above  its  real  value; 
yet  it  may  legalize  such  pool  or  combination  as  is  created  or  organized  for  the  pur- 
pose of  obtaining  fair  and  remunerative  prices."  Opinion  of  Judge  Carroll,  Ken- 
tucky Court  of  Appeals,  February  7,  1908. 

[   143  ] 


bossism  and  improper  combination  to  help  to  put  on  others 
the  very  thing  they  object  to  in  the  Continental.  No  more 
convincing  proof,  if  there  was  not  a  multitude  of  other  proofs, 
of  its  demoralization  upon  the  body  politic,  could  be  shown 
than  the  advice  of  our  learned  and  most  able  judge — and  we 
hope  that  he  is  incorrectly  quoted,  when  in  his  speech  at  Car- 
rolton,  August  21,  he  said  in  his  peroration  (I  quote  from 
the  Herald  of  August  23)  :  "Make  Kentucky  strong,  my  fel- 
low countrymen.  Stand  shoulder  to  shoulder,  and  make  this 
pool  a  success  at  all  reasonable  and  moral  hazards." 

If  he  said  it — and  we  do  him  the  favor  of  calling  his  at- 
tention to  it,  so  he  can  correct  it,  if  not  correctly  reported — 
we  hope  he  did  not  realize  its  full  import.  But,  if  true,  then 
can  we  not  say  that  night-riding  with  all  its  dread  results  is  a 
necessary  result  of  this  movement,  when  their  ablest  advocate, 
a  judge  of  the  Court  of  Appeals,  uses  such  language  ?  To  the 
patriotic  citizen,  who  believes  in  the  enforcement  of  the  law 
as  the  basis  of  all  our  liberties,  and  that  nothing  good  can 
come  from  lawlessness  and  violence,  but  only  harm,  the 
Equity  pool  does  not  appeal  in  the  least,  however  strong  may 
be  the  financial  allurement — which  is  now  weak — until  the 
said  society  gives  far  better  guarantee  to  keep  the  peace  and 
to  respect  and  support  the  enforcement  of  the  law. 


OBJECTIONS    TO    THE    PROPOSED    CONSTITU- 
TIONAL AMENDMENT  '  ON  TAXATION,  1910. 

"C.  M.  Clay  wrote  this  piece  and  sent  slips  of  it  to  all  members 
of  the  Legislature  in  the  winter  of  IQIO,  before  the  House  acted  on 
it." — Marginal  note  written  by  my  father. — C. 

As  it  is  well  that  all  questions  should  be  fully  discussed 
before  legislative  action  is  had  in  reference  to  them,  we  have 
concluded  to  give  some  objections  to  the  Constitutional 
Amendment  in  regard  to  taxation  now  before  the  Legislature. 
Admitting  some  of  the  evils  charged  by  the  Tax  Commission2 
against  the  working  of  the  present  revenue  system,  they  are 
to  a  great  extent  the  results  of  an  imperfect  administration  of 
the  law,  and  not  due  necessarily  to  the  Constitutional  provi- 
sion for  uniform  taxation;  and  such  or  similar  evils  would 
attend  the  execution  of  any  other  system.  Now,  in  regard 
to  the  argument  of  the  Commission  that  the  present  system 
is  conducive  to  concealment  of  personal  property,  it  is  the 
universal  experience  of  mankind  that  personal  property  of 


1  The  proposed  amendment  authorized  the  General  Assembly  to  classify  property 
and,  in  its  discretion,  to  exempt  altogether,  or  to  tax  at  a  nominal  rate,  one  class, 
while  other  classes  of  property  might  be  taxed  at  higher  rates.  An  able  writer  on 
this  proposal  thus  expressed  himself:  "The  adoption  of  such  an  amendment  would 
be  the  signal  for  a  fierce  struggle  before  the  General  Assembly  between  the  different 
classes  of  property;  and  it  is  easy  to  foresee  the  result  of  this  contest.  Capital, 
always  compact  and  organized,  with  unlimited  means  at  its  command,  would  easily 
prevail  and  secure  exemption,  or  nominal  taxation,  while  the  small  property  holders, 
without  organization,  resources  or  representation,  would  be  ground  between  the 
upper  and  nether  millstones  of  taxation." 

3  One  of  the  chief  points  noticed  by  this  Commission,  which  was  appointed  to 
investigate  the  subject,  was  that,  although  the  Constitution  provided  that  "all  prop- 
erty shall  be  assessed  for  taxation  at  its  fair  cash  value,  personal  property,  in 
particular,  stocks,  bonds,  money,  etc.,  was  so  assessed,  while  real  estate,  as  a 
rule,  was  assessed  at  a  discount  on  its  true  value.  Furthermore,  it  was  claimed 
that  this  working  of  the  law,  whereby  taxes  fell  heavier  on  stocks,  bonds,  notes, 
etc.,  rather  than  on  real  estate,  was  conducive  to  the  illegal  concealment  of  the 
first  from  taxation.  The  gist  of  Mr.  Clay's  argument  is  that  these  evils  are  the 
result  of  an  imperfect  administration  of  the  law:  and  that  we  should  remedy  these 
conditions  by  better  administration  of  the  present  law  for  uniform  taxation  rather 
than  by  a  revolution  in  the  tax  system.  The  proposed  amendment  would,  in  sub- 
stance, break  down  the  present  constitutional  limitations  for  equality  of  taxation 
and  place  the  question  entirely  in  the  hands  of  the  Legislature  with  all  the  attend- 
ant dangers  of  constant  manipulation  by  special  interests  to  the  injustice  of  unpro- 
tected and  less  aggressive  classes. 


the  kind  that  can  be  concealed,  is  but  imperfectly  given  in  for 
taxation.  What  security  can  anyone,  who  opposes  the  pres- 
ent system,  have,  that  the  system  which  he  favors  will  be 
adopted  by  the  Legislature,  or,  if  adopted,  will  be  retained, 
should  the  proposed  Amendment  be  carried?3  The  ses- 
sions of  the  Legislature  are  so  short,  being  limited  to  sixty 
days,  as  to  not  admit  of  any  thorough  or  exhaustive  examina- 
tion of  the  tax  question,  and  special  interests  will  be  con- 
cerned in  getting  what  advantage  they  can.  They,  being 
able,  will  employ  special  agents  or  counsel,  and  they  will  thus 
get  a  consideration  that  the  plain  people  of  the  Common- 
wealth, either  from  lack  of  habit  or  of  means,  will  not  pro- 
cure. What  better  illustration  of  such  fact  than  in  the  case 
of  the  United  States  government!  There  the  special  inter- 
ests, through  the  tariff,  reap  untold  millions  from  the  con- 
sumers of  the  country;  and  their  victims,  the  plain  people, 
are  unable  to  loosen  this  rapacious  hold  upon  their  pocket- 
books.  These  special  interests  are  fully  able  to  employ  the 
best  counsel,  and  do  so,  and  also  they  personally  appear  in 
great  numbers  before  the  committees  of  Congress,  and  make 
big  money  by  doing  so,  while  the  consumer  who  suffers  and 
bears  the  burden,  lacking  both  organization  and  money,  is 
conspicuous  by  his  absence.  We  would,  if  the  present  uni- 
form rule  of  taxation  were  abolished,  see  the  same  thing  in 
kind  in  Frankfort.  To  the  man  who  replies  that  this  argu- 
ment implies  a  distrust  of  the  Legislature,  we  would  answer 
that  the  same  criticism  could  be  made  against  any  other 
necessary  constitutional  limitation  upon  the  power  of  the 
Legislature. 

Having  given  one  of  the  main  objections  to  any  constitu- 
tional change,  we  will  now  meet  some  of  the  objections  made 
by  the  Tax  Commission,  composed  of  gentlemen  whom  we 
highly  respect  and  with  whom  we  regret  the  necessity  of  hav- 
ing to  differ.  They  make  the  point  that  money  loaned  in 

'i.e.:     The    proposed     amendment    did    not    directly    establish     a    new    system    of 
taxation.      It  only  authorized   the   General  Assembly  to   do   so,  at   its  discretion. 

[  146  ] 


the  cities  or  in  savings  banks  is  taxed  too  high.4  This  might 
be  remedied  by  a  change  in  the  administration  of  the  present 
law,  and,  if  necessary,  of  the  Statute  law.  If  real  estate  is 
practically  assessed  at  a  fraction  of  its  value,  so  may  notes, 
bonds  and  money  be  assessed  in  like  manner.  The  Constitu- 
tional requirement  of  taxation  at  a  fair  cash  value  is  no  more 
obligatory  on  notes,  bonds  and  money  than  it  is  on  real 
estate.  The  main  thing  required  by  justice  in  taxation  is 
equality  of  burden.  The  burdens  of  real  estate  and  other 
forms  of  capital  should  be  equalized,  and  that  is  the  very 
essence  and  spirit  of  the  present  Constitutional  requirement. 
We  do  not  claim  that  the  present  statutory  and  constitutional 
system  is  ideal, — the  statutory  and  administration  part  might 
be  materially  improved — but  it  is  certainly  a  bulwark  and 
defense  against  the  cohorts  of  special  interests,  which  in  so 
many  other  cases  have  gotten  control  of  the  power  of  taxa- 
tion. A  revision  of  the  statute  laws,  to  prevent  double  taxa- 
tion 5  and  to  provide  a  better  and  more  perfect  equalization 
of  the  assessments  of  the  various  forms  of  property,  would 
certainly  remedy  most  or  all  of  the  evils  of  the  execution  of 
the  revenue  laws  of  the  State.  Surely,  to  throw  down  all  the 
bulwarks  of  the  Constitution  in  favor  of  equal  taxation  in 
defense  of  the  plain  tax-payers  and  subject  the  revenue  laws 
to  the  assaults  of  the  special  interests,  who  can  employ  coun- 
sel and  lobbyists,  is  not  wise. 

Again,  if  they  propose  to  take  taxes  off  of  personal  prop- 
erty, then  the  burden  on  real  estate  must  necessarily  be  in- 
creased.6 One  reason  why  taxes  in  cities  are  so  high  in  com- 
parison with  rural  communities  is  that  the  citizens  are  pro- 
vided with  many  conveniences;  there  is  great  extravagance  in 
the  expenditure  of  public  money;  and  besides,  if  the  assess- 
ment is  fair,  the  real  estate  is  as  heavily  burdened  as  the  per- 

4  That    is,    in    comparison    with    real    estate. 

0  Under  the  tax  laws,  mortgagor  and  mortgagee  are  both  taxed — the  one  upon 
his  land  and  the  other  upon  the  note  secured  by  the  mortgage. 

6  "To  break  down  the  rule  of  equal  taxation  in  favor  of  the  special  interests 
would  antagonize  every  farmer,  and  real  estate  holder,  in  the  State  of  Kentucky, 
who  would  feel  that  the  Constitution  had  been  changed  to  allow  the  special  interests, 
which  can  send  powerful  lobbies  to  Frankfort,  to  get  advantage  of  them,  and  to 
throw  upon  them  nearly  all  the  burden  of  taxation."  Article  by  C.  M.  Clay,  Tr. 

C  147  ] 


sonal  property.  Some  of  the  money  in  savings  banks  may  be 
used  unprofitably,  and  also  much  of  the  real  estate  may  like- 
wise realize  little  or  no  profit.  If  capital  is  needed  in  the 
cities  or  towns,  it  is  furnished  by  the  banks,  who  draw  it 
from  any  available  source  just  as  it  is  needed,  and  in  this  way 
keep  interest  in  the  average  just  about  the  same  as  in  other 
communities.  In  all  our  cities  and  towns  there  is  sufficient 
loanable  capital  for  all  legitimate  business  or  enterprises,  and 
more  would  be  hurtful,  or  would  flow  to  where  it  was  needed. 
All  businesses  tend  to  equalize  in  profits,  allowing  for  the 
good  or  bad  reputation,  the  safety  or  the  hazards  of  each 
kind.  When  any  business  becomes  unprofitable  as  com- 
pared with  other  forms,  more  capital  is  diverted  into  more 
profitable  branches,  until  equalization  of  profits  takes  place 
or  tends  to  take  place,  and  so  on  forever.  The  action  is  just 
the  same  as  that  of  gravity  on  water.  You  make  a  depres- 
sion of  the  surface  of  the  water,  and  the  water  flows  in  from 
other  points  to  fill  the  depression,  or  if  the  water  is  too  high 
at  any  point,  the  surplus  flows  outward  to  effect  an  equaliza- 
tion. So,  in  general,  business  will  adjust  itself  to  conditions 
under  almost  any  system,  but  the  most  important  matter  is 
that  each  individual  shall  equally  bear  the  burden  of  taxa- 
tion in  proportion  to  his  financial  ability.  We  predict — the 
arguments  of  the  Commissioners  to  the  contrary  notwith- 
standing— that  the  effect  of  the  contemplated  change  will  be 
to  increase  the  burden  upon  the  farmer  and  real  estate  holder. 
Too  much  importance  should  not  be  given  to  ex  parte  statis- 
tics, collected  here  and  there  from  a  very  wide  range  of 
vision,  unless  in  each  case  the  innumerable  modifying  condi- 
tions, which  are  not  presented  and  which  very  likely  could 
not  be  presented,  are  thoroughly  understood.  Similar  statis- 
tics might  be  furnished  to  favor  any  theory  or  system.  Fin- 
ally, we  take  it  that  the  main  question  involved  in  this  whole 
matter  is  the  right  of  the  individual,  in  whatever  business 
engaged,  to  bear  a  burden  of  taxation  no  greater  in  propor- 
tion than  his  fellow  citizens  bear. 

C   148  ] 


THE  INITIATIVE,  REFERENDUM  AND  RECALL 
OF  OFFICIALS,    1912. 

These  questions  are  now  being  considered  by  the  public, 
and  it  much  concerns  us,  before  we  get  irrevocably  com- 
mitted to  these  policies,  that  we  critically  examine  them  and 
understand  their  probable  bearings  and  final  results  upon  our 
system  of  government.  On  account  of  the  faults  of  human 
nature  or  a  lack  of  mental  or  emotional  balance,  there  is  on 
social  and  political  questions  a  strong  tendency  in  public  opin- 
ion, when  once  aroused,  to  go  to  extremes  and  like  the  swing 
of  a  pendulum  only  to  return  to  a  wise  equilibrium  after  hav- 
ing gone  far  beyond  such  point.  To  illustrate:  the  general 
tendency  to  a  concentration  of  capital  and  to  the  formation 
of  large  monopolistic  corporations  with  their  attending 
abuses  of  the  rights  and  the  opportunities  of  the  average 
man,  has  brought  on  in  the  public  mind  a  disposition,  not 
only  to  adequately  regulate  and  control  them  in  the  interests 
of  the  people,  but  also  to  resort  to  extreme  and  radical,  and 
even  harmful,  and,  as  we  believe,  abortive  means  of  prevent- 
ing such  abuses  in  the  future.  The  Public  Mind,  for  the 
time  being,  is  liable  to  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  wisdom  lies 
in  moderation,  and  in  considering  only  one  factor  of  a  prob- 
lem, when,  may  be,  many  should  be  regarded.  In  order  to 
get  at  evils  apparently  quickly,  they  may  be  sowing  the  seeds 
of  instability  and  anarchy. 

We  believe  in  our  form  of  well  balanced,  constitutional, 
representative  government  in  which  individual  rights  are 
amply  guaranteed  and  protected  and  individual  development 
promoted  and  consequently,  as  the  quality  of  the  units  deter- 
mines the  quality  of  the  whole,  general  welfare  advanced. 
We  consider  an  absolute  or  unlimited  Democracy  as  Anar- 

[  149  ] 


chy,  and  as  no  better  than  a  one  man  despotism;  nay,  even 
worse,  for  the  despotism  of  the  mob  is  worse  than  that  of 
one  man.  The  Democracies  of  ancient  times  illustrate  the 
evils  of  unbridled  Democracy  in  which  there  is  no  check  on 
the  instant  will  of  the  mere  majority.  The  great  glory  of 
our  forefathers  of  the  Revolution  in  establishing  our  form  of 
government  and  of  their  successors  in  perpetuating  it,  is  that, 
while  they  preserved  the  spirit  and  substance  of  Democracy, 
they  imposed  checks  and  restraints  upon  the  will  of  the  mere 
majority,  so  that  its  sudden  injustices,  passions  and  instabili- 
ties were  eliminated,  and  its  final  will  tempered  down  to 
comparative  justice  and  wisdom.  They  divided  the  dele- 
gated powers  of  the  National  Government  (and  about  the 
same  way  in  regard  to  the  undelegated,  of  the  States)  into 
three  equal  and  independent  departments,  and  provided  that 
no  one  of  these  should  exercise  any  of  the  powers  of  either 
of  the  others.  As  you  well  know,  these  departments  are  the 
Executive,  Legislative  and  Judicial.  The  Legislative  de- 
partment was  divided  into  two  bodies,  elected  for  a  different 
term  and  by  a  different  constituency,  each  having  a  veto  upon 
the  other.  Also  the  Executive  was  given  a  qualified  veto  in 
Legislative  matters.  In  addition  they  gave  to  courts  the 
duty,  among  other  things,  of  keeping  all  departments  within 
their  constitutional  limits,  and  above  all  they  placed  a  written 
constitution  in  which  certain  rights  of  the  individual  and  the 
states  were  placed  above  the  power  and  control  of  any  or  all 
of  these  departments,  or  that  of  any  mere  majority.  As  a 
matter  of  course,  there  was  a  way  prescribed  in  which  this 
constitution  could  be  amended.  As  a  consequence,  we  have 
a  stable  and  well  regulated  liberty.  Any  attempt  to  break 
down  these  guarantees  and  balances  can  only  lead  to  a  less 
stable  and  protected  liberty  for  the  individual.  The  indi- 
vidual needs  less  the  power,  along  with  the  mob,  to  impose 
upon  others,  than  protection  in  the  enjoyment  of  his  rights 
of  life,  liberty  and  property. 

Another  one  of  the  great  advantages  of  representative 

C   150  ] 


Democratic  government,  as  contrasted  with  unlimited  Dem- 
ocracy, consists  in  the  fact  that  in  this  way  you  commit  the 
making  of  the  laws,  their  execution  and  adjudication  sever- 
ally to  trained  bodies  of  men  of  ability,  knowledge  and  experi- 
ence, who  are  far  better  qualified  than  the  average  voter  to 
perform  their  respective  functions.  These  men,  with  a  fixed 
tenure  of  office,  are  selected  directly  or  indirectly  by  the  peo- 
ple, and  are  responsible  to  them  for  the  performance  of  their 
duties.  In  the  proportion  that  these  men  are  better  quali- 
fied, will  the  quality  of  the  government  be  above  the  possible 
attainment  and  competency  of  the  average  voter,  acting  for 
himself;  and  by  so  much  as  by  the  checks  and  balances  of 
our  system  the  spasmodic  waves  of  sentiment  and  emotion  of 
the  masses  are  eliminated  and  their  logical  and  reasonable 
purposes  conserved,  will  the  government  gain  in  the  intelli- 
gence, continuity  and  stability  of  its  policies.  Finally,  the 
power  rests  with  the  average  voter,  and  should  he  determine, 
which  heretofore  he  has  had  the  good  sense  and  conservatism 
not  to  do,  that  he  himself  will  perform  these  various  func- 
tions, then  the  government  descends  to  his  level  in  quality 
and  efficiency;  and  this  is  the  case  in  proportion  to  the  extent 
in  which  he  exercises  these  functions.  Let  us  now,  for  a 
moment,  see  who  is  the  average  voter.  In  a  county  polling 
5,001  votes,  he  is  the  one  after  selecting  2,500  of  the  more 
competent  voters.  Now,  in  many  cases,  the  more  intelli- 
gent influence  controls  the  less  intelligent  voters;  but,  on 
some  questions,  and  these  socially  the  most  dangerous,  the 
average  vote  controls  and  decides  the  result. 

Our  objection  to  the  Referendum,  and  it  is  the  least 
objectionable  of  the  three,  is  that  it  relieves  the  legislator  of 
that  personal  and  efficient  responsibility  that  can  nowhere 
else  be  so  wisely  placed.  The  responsibility  of  passing  good 
laws  is  not  placed  where  there  is,  comparatively,  efficiency 
and  competence.  With  the  Referendum,  the  legislator  is 
relieved  of  the  full  extent  of  the  responsibility  of  seeing  that 
the  measure  is  well  matured  and  perfected  and  the  best  that 

[   151   ] 


he  can  possibly  make.  To  illustrate  this,  we  know  of  a  re- 
cent instance,  where  a  constitutional  amendment1  of  great 
importance,  though  not  satisfactory  to  many  members  in  our 
Legislature,  was  allowed  to  be  submitted  to  the  people  with- 
out protest  or  opposition,  on  the  plea  that  the  people  would 
decide  for  themselves.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  said  amendment 
was  not  discussed  by  both  sides  before  the  people,  only  mis- 
leading statements  as  to  its  effects  being  made  by  its  support- 
ers, and  little  or  nothing  said  in  opposition.  The  vote  was 
very  light  and  very  little  interest  was  taken,  and  the  votes  of 
many  counties  were  not  counted  in  the  final  result;  yet  this 
amendment  was  of  vast  importance  to  the  State.  We  only 
refer  to  this  case  to  show  that,  with  the  Referendum,  no  ade- 
quate consideration  will  be  given  measures  by  the  legislature, 
and  that  the  average  voters  themselves  have  neither  time,  op- 
portunity nor  aptitude  for  proper  discussion  and  decision. 
Such  measures,  except  in  rare  cases  where  there  is  a  strong 
personal  and  local  interest,  as,  for  instance,  temperance  ques- 
tions, will  excite  but  little  interest  among  the  people,  and  but 
few  will  even  vote  for  or  against  them.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  legislators,  being  freed  from  the  full  responsibility  for 
the  results  of  such  legislation,  will  not  adequately  perform 
their  full  legislative  duties  of  seeing  that  these  measures, 
properly  perfected,  are  wise  and  far-seeing. 

Now,  in  regard  to  the  Initiative.  We  shall  not  speak 
of  any  particular  form  of  the  Initiative,  but  only  of  the  gen- 
eral principles  involved.  The  proper  making  of  laws,  or 
business  of  wisely  legislating,  is  really  one  of  the  most  diffi- 
cult and  complicated  of  professions.  To  make  suitable  and 
wise  laws  requires  more  intelligence  and  comprehensive 
knowledge  than  is  required  in  the  successful  practice  of  any 
of  the  learned  professions.  History,  Sociology,  Political 


1  The  "Good  Roads"  Amendment  submitted  to  popular  vote  in  November,  1909. 
Mr.  Clay's  article,  published  in  the  local  papers,  was  one  of  the  few  arguments 
which  appeared  in  print  against  this  proposition.  His  opposition  to  the  Amendment 
was  based  on  the  fact  that  "in  regard  to  the  State  there  is  no  limit  to  the  credit 
that  may  be  given,  pledged  or  loaned  to  any  County  of  the  Commonwealth  for 
public  road  purposes."  The  Amendment  was  lost  "although  very  little  interest  was 
taken  in  the  result." 

[  152  1 


Economy,  and  many  other  kinds  of  knowledge  should  con- 
tribute to  the  equipment  of  the  wise  legislator;  in  fine,  as 
much  of  human  knowledge  as  possible  should  assist  in  the 
making  of  a  code  of  laws,  consistent  with  the  moral  and 
intellectual  development  of  the  time.  Not  only  this,  but 
the  fullest  opportunity  and  time  for  debate  and  amendment 
should  be  given  for  the  perfecting  of  measures.  The  busi- 
ness of  legislating  requires  a  concentration  of  efforts,  impos- 
sible to  the  average  voter  at  home,  attending  to  his  daily 
private  business,  even  were  he  qualified.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  selected  representative  is  generally  far  above  the  average 
voter  in  intelligence.  He  devotes  all  his  time  during  the 
legislative  session  to  consideration  of  public  measures.  He 
has,  through  discussion,  the  benefit  of  the  best  talents  in  the 
Assembly,  as  well  as  in  the  State,  for  eminent  men  are  called 
in  to  address  the  committees  on  important  questions.  He 
has  the  benefit  of  a  wise  legislative  organization  for  the 
accomplishment,  through  committees  and  otherwise,  of  the 
best  results,  and  of  a  library  adapted  to  the  wants  of  a  legis- 
lator. A  bill  is  in  each  legislative  body  read  three  times, 
after  more  or  less  delay,  and  opportunity  for  debate  and 
amendment  are  given.  For  the  convenience  of  perfecting, 
it  is  printed  at  the  amendment  stage,  and  every  opportunity 
given  for  putting  it  in  the  best  form.  Having  passed  one 
House,  the  same  process  is  gone  through  with  in  the  other. 
After  a  bill  has  passed  both  Houses,  it  goes  to  the  Governor, 
who  can  veto  it  if  he  thinks  proper.  In  case  of  a  veto  it  has 
to  be  again  passed  by  both  houses  before  becoming  a  law. 
Even  after  all  these  pains  taken  by  competent  persons,  much 
bad  legislation  is  passed,  and  also  many  measures  are  thrown 
out  by  the  courts  on  account  of  unconstitutionality.  Again, 
how  many  laws  have  the  opposite  effect  from  that  intended 
by  their  frarners!  If  we  had  time  we  could  give  many  in- 
stances. Now  let  us  take  the  other  side.  We  must  deal 
with  the  average  voter,  for  he  decides.  The  average  voter 
is  intensely  occupied  with  making  a  living  for  himself  and 

[   153  ] 


family  and  it  is  impossible  for  him  to  get  adequately  posted 
about  the  details  of  many  public  measures.  He  has  no  oppor- 
tunities of  hearing  on  both  sides  intelligent  and  thorough 
debate  about  these  questions;  and  if  he  does  hear  anything,  it 
is  in  all  probability  an  ad  captandum,  or  one-sided,  partisan 
argument.  He  has  no  opportunity  of  amending  or  perfect- 
ing a  measure.  The  effect  of  all  this,  as  a  general  thing  will 
be,  he  will  take  no  interest,  and  either  give  an  unintelligent 
vote,  or  else  leave  the  decision  as  to  the  passage  of  the  law 
to  an  interested  or  manipulating  few.  While  the  average 
voter  can  give  no  proper  consideration  to  the  enacting  of 
laws,  he  can  much  better  easily  make  under  the  representative 
system  an  intelligent  choice  in  the  selecting  of  legislators. 

For  instance,  the  average  man  with  moderate  means  can 
select  a  capable  lawyer  to  conduct  his  complicated  law  case, 
while  utterly  incompetent  to  do  so  himself;  or  a  learned  sur- 
geon to  perform  some  difficult  operation  on  a  member  of  his 
family  for  which  operation  he  himself  is  utterly  incapable. 
Let  us  investigate,  for  a  moment,  some  of  the  evils  of  letting 
the  people  act  directly  as  legislators.  Nothing  so  injures  a 
state  as  ill-considered  and  hasty  laws.  They  increase  litiga- 
tion and  make  insecure  all  the  rights  of  person  and  property. 
They  must  increase  the  cost  of  government,  while  depressing 
and  discouraging  all  business  and  industry.  All  socialists  and 
anarchists,  so  far  as  I  know,  are  in  favor  of  the  initiative,  ref- 
erendum and  recall  of  officials,  as  they  well  know  that  they 
are  an  efficient  lever  for  breaking  down  the  present  arguments 
of  society  and  government,  and  for  producing  that  insecurity 
and  instability  that  they  welcome  in  their  effort  to  revolu- 
tionize our  present  system  of  land  ownership,  distribution  of 
property,  marriage  and  other  institutions  of  society.  While 
this  last  is  not  a  logical  argument  against  these  measures,  still 
it  should  arouse  our  suspicions  and  increase  our  care  and  pains 
in  their  consideration. 

Advocates  of  the  recall  and  initiative  cry  out  that  we  do 
not  trust  the  people.  The  same  plea  would  do  away  with  the 

[  154  ] 


constitutions  and  the  checks  and  balances  of  our  system.  The 
same  plea  would  relegate  us  to  the  system  of  Athens,  where 
one  day  a  citizen  was  voted  a  hero  and  a  general,  and  another 
day  was  condemned  to  drink  the  hemlock;  where  hardly  any 
prominent  man  lived  through  his  career,  without  either  his 
property  being  confiscated,  without  being  sent  into  exile  or 
condemned  to  death.  In  the  case  of  Athens,  the  territory 
was  very  limited,  the  diversity  of  interests  very  small,  and 
citizenship  and  the  resultant  suffrage  not  general,  but  restrict- 
ed, and  the  voting  class  of  the  highest  intellectual  quality  the 
world  has  ever  seen.  Yes,  we  believe  in  trusting  the  people, 
but,  for  their  own  good,  in  the  legal  and  constitutional  way 
of  our  system,  a  way  that  the  wisdom  of  our  fathers  and  their 
predecessors  and  centuries  of  civilization  and  governmental 
progress  demand. 

Sometimes  representatives  abuse  their  trust,  for  all  hu- 
man arrangements  are  more  or  less  faulty;  still,  it  is  far  bet- 
ter to  turn  out  one  of  these  unworthy  servants  at  the  end  of 
his  term  than  to  utterly  disarrange  and  destroy  the  advan- 
tages of  our  system.  At  the  worst,  the  misrepresentation 
in  legislation  can  but  a  short  time  delay  the  passage  of  any 
proper  and  necessary  legislation  that  is  demanded  by  wise 
and  predominant  public  sentiment. 

A  few  words  about  the  recall  of  officials  and  we  are  done. 
We  will  be  very  brief.  The  same  reasons,  so  ably  given  by 
President  Taft  and  others  against  the  recall  of  judges,  more 
or  less  prevail  against  the  recall  of  other  officials.  No  official 
can  fully  do  his  duty  under  the  duress  of  popular  clamor,  and 
the  effect  of  the  system  would  be  to  put  demagogues  and 
blatherskites  in  office  and  to  debar  the  better  class  of  men.  If 
an  official  is  liable  at  any  time  to  have  snap  judgment  taken 
on  him,  he  cannot,  from  a  selfish  standpoint,  afford  to  antago- 
nize any  sudden  emotion  or  passion  of  his  constituency.  While 
officials  should  be  under  the  legitimate  control  of  the  voters, 
it  is  far  better  that  they  should  have  the  reasonable  time  given 
them  by  their  legal  term  of  office,  in  which  to  justify  their  ac- 

[  155  ] 


tions  and  policy.  Again,  the  frequent  elections  would  dis- 
turb business  and  retard  prosperity,  and,  farther  than  all 
else,  would  give  instability  and  confusion  to  governmental 
policy,  which  would,  in  the  highest  degree,  be  detrimental  to 
any  continual  and  consistent  reforms.  Some  one  will  say,  will 
not  the  recall  relieve  us  of  bad  officials?  It  might  in  a  few 
cases,  but  we  must  consider  the  average  effects  of  such  policy. 
It  is  far  better  that  a  few  unsatisfactory  officials  (if  they  act 
corruptly  they  can  be  legally  removed  from  office)  should 
serve  out  their  limited  terms  than  that  we  should  suffer  all  the 
evils  of  the  proposed  system.  Again,  the  reforms — we  speak 
of  the  control  and  regulation  of  trusts  and  monopolies  and 
like  subjects — that  have  aroused  the  demand  for  these  radi- 
cal and  crude  measures  of  initiative,  referendum  and  recall, 
have  substantially  already  been  affected  or  are  in  a  successful 
way  of  being  accomplished  by  our  present  system  without  re- 
sorting to  any  strain  upon  our  representative  and  constitu- 
tional form  of  government.  The  delay  has  occurred,  not 
from  want  of  proper  power  in  government  to  effect  the  need- 
ed results,  but  from  the  newness  and  complicated  nature  of 
the  great  industrial  questions  involved,  and  the  adequate  and 
complete  solution  can  only  come  from  a  clear  realization  of 
all  the  factors  and  conditions  of  the  problems,  a  knowledge 
that  necessarily  comes  slowly  and  to  a  great  extent  by  experi- 
ence. Our  present  representative,  constitutional  government 
can,  when  knowledge  comes,  we  are  sure,  adequately  meet 
all  the  requirements  of  the  problems  of  the  present  and  the 
future  without  resorting  to  radical  and  revolutionary  policies 
that  may  be  destructive  of  our  individual  rights  of  American 
and  Anglican  liberty. 

Finally,  to  sum  up,  we  think  that  if  the  three  measures 
were  adopted,  the  effect  would  be  to  give  uncertainty  and  in- 
stability to  our  governmental  policies,  very  much  impede  the 
business  prosperity  of  the  country,  and  weaken  or  destroy 
the  guarantees  of  our  personal  and  property  rights. 


THE  INITIATIVE,  REFERENDUM  AND  RECALL, 
FURTHER  DISCUSSED,  JANUARY  26,  1912. 

We  see  in  the  last  Sunday's  Courier-Journal  a  very  able 
presentation  of  the  claims  of  the  Initiative,  Referendum  and 
Recall,  by  the  Hon.  W.  B.  Fleming — a  reply  to  an  article  of 
mine  opposing  said  measures. 

Permit  us  to  reply — not  repeating  our  argument — to  his 
most  important  points  not  treated  in  our  article : 

The  main  force  of  the  movement  for  these  measures, 
like  the  pleas  for  Free  Silver  and  Greenback  fiatism,  lies  in  a 
skillful  appeal  to  justice,  and  an  adroit  flattery  of  the  aver- 
age voter.  The  Free  Silver  and  Greenback  causes  were  also 
backed  by  much  more  logical  and  reasonable  arguments.  In 
these  last  two  contests  the  prejudices  of  the  voters  were  ex- 
cited against  the  money  or  propertied  classes,  and  the  insid- 
ious flattery  was  given  the  masses  that  they  knew  as  much  or 
more  about  the  financial  question  than  the  trained  scientists 
who  had  devoted  their  lives  to  the  study  of  the  intricate  and 
complicated  problems  of  finance  and  Political  Economy. 
Every  scientist  who  opposed  them — and  scientists  all  did— 
was  denounced  as  a  satellite  of  the  money  power.  The  force 
of  such  advocacy  was  so  great  that  the  Free  Silver  and  Green- 
back crazes  swept  over  the  Western  States — the  same  terri- 
tory now  affected — like  a  whirlwind,  and  the  right  policies 
were  finally  adopted  in  the  nation  only  by  the  most  strenuous 
exertions  of  those  better  versed  in  finances. 

Mr.  Fleming  charges  that  my  argument  is  Hamiltonian 
and  not  Democratic;  but  we  claim  that  it  is  Jeffersonian  and 
Democratic,  but  not  populistic.  Let  us  quote  Thomas  Jeffer- 
son, the  Father  of  Democracy,  in  reference  to  Representative, 
Constitutional  government.  Speaking  of  equal  rights,  he  de- 

[  157  ] 


clared:  "Modern  times  have  the  signal  advantage,  too,  of 
having  discovered  the  only  device  by  which  these  rights  can 
be  secured,  to  wit:  Government  by  the  people  acting  not  in 
person,  but  by  Representatives  chosen  by  themselves."  Mr. 
Underwood  has  well  said,  that  "the  Author  of  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence,  knowing  well  that  all  popular  govern- 
ment, before  his  time,  resting  on  the  direct  decisions  of  the 
people,  had  failed  and  ultimately  had  reverted  to  uncontrolled 
despotism,  rejoiced  that  the  hour  had  come  when  a  Rep- 
resentative government  could  express  the  will  of  a  free 
people." 

Mr.  Fleming  expresses  the  hope  that  we,  like  Governor 
Wilson,  may  change  our  mind  and  support  these  visionary 
schemes.  We  are  not  a  candidate  for  any  office  and  not 
under  any  strain  to  modify  our  views  to  suit  any  political 
emergency.  We  prefer  to  stand  with  Governor  Wilson  when 
not  a  candidate,  and  not  with  Governor  Wilson,  a  candidate. 
Governor  Wilson  when  not  a  candidate  said,  speaking  of 
these  measures:  "It  has  dulled  the  sense  of  responsibility 
among  legislators,  without  in  fact  quickening  the  people  to 
the  exercise  of  any  real  control  in  affairs.  Where  it  (Initia- 
tive) has  been  employed,  it  has  not  promised  either  progress 
or  enlightenment,  leading  rather  to  doubtful  experiments 
and  to  reactionary  displays  of  prejudice  rather  than  to  really 
useful  legislation.  A  government  must  have  organs — it 
cannot  act  by  inorganic  masses.  It  must  have  a  law-making 
body — it  can  no  more  make  laws  through  its  voters  than  it 
can  make  laws  through  its  newspapers." 

Next,  we  utterly  deny  the  claim  that  the  Initiative,  Refer- 
endum and  Recall  can  handle  the  trust  question  and  other 
vital  reforms  better  than  Representative  Government  can. 
All  laws  for  the  control  of  these  complicated  industrial  ques- 
tions or  other  questions,  can  be  much  better  framed  and 
perfected  under  the  Representative  System  with  trained  and 
well  informed  men  acting  as  legislators.  With  their  knowl- 
edge and  experience  they  will  prevent  those  crude  and  ex- 

[  158  ] 


treme  measures  that  can  only  bring  destructive  reactions  and 
prevent  any  consistent  and  reasonable  control.  In  fact,  such 
control  would  be  impossible  by  the  direct  legislation  of  the 
people.  If  there  are  difficult  questions  unsettled,  and  there 
will  be  many,  then  surely  we  can  the  better  accomplish  their 
solution  under  the  present  system  than  under  the  proposed 
one. 

Our  present  Representative  system  has  always  been  re- 
sponsive to  all  well  matured  and  reasonable  demands  of  the 
majority  of  the  people.  The  regulation  of  Railroads  and 
other  corporations,  the  Trust,  the  Pure  Food,  Publicity  of 
Campaign  Contributions  and  many  other  laws,  too  numerous 
to  mention,  attest  the  truth  of  the  responsiveness  of  our  Rep- 
resentative government  to  public  opinion,  a  public  opinion 
that  is  a  much  better  judge  of  men  than  measures. 

To  the  local  referendum  whch  only  applies  a  general  law 
already  enacted  to  localities  as  they  may  by  majority  of  vote 
desire,  there  is  no  objection. 

Our  argument  in  our  original  article  was  not  academic, 
as  claimed  by  Mr.  Fleming,  but  was  based  upon  the  views  of 
all  our  great  American  statesmen  of  the  past  and  the  experi- 
ences of  the  preceding  ages  of  governmental  progress.  Rep- 
resentative, Constitutional  government  is  the  result  of  evolu- 
tion of  twenty  centuries  of  the  effort  of  freedom-loving  men 
to  form  a  stable  government  with  liberty.  Spencer,  the  great 
evolutionist,  defends  it  in  a  special  essay.  This  Republic,  of 
all  Republican  countries  of  any  size  or  diversity  of  interest, 
with  its  representative  government  has  alone  survived,  for 
any  length  of  time,  the  storms  of  anarchy.  The  experience 
of  the  ages  justifies  and  confirms  it.  The  Referendum,  Ini- 
tiative and  Recall  is  an  unfit,  degenerate  variation  that  time 
and  use  should  eliminate.  The  case  of  Switzerland  is  often 
quoted  in  behalf  of  these  schemes.  If  there  is  any  country  on 
the  face  of  the  globe,  where  these  measures  would  do  the 
least  harm,  Switzerland  is  that  country.  The  territory  is 
small  and  poor,  business  insignificant,  the  inhabitants  homo- 

[  159  ] 


geneous  with  little  or  no  foreign  admixture,  and  mainly  rural, 
no  or  little  diversity  of  interest,  and  of  insignificant  wealth. 
Yet  even  here  the  effect  has  been  made  to  make  Switzerland 
the  most  socialistic  or  communistic  of  civilized  countries. 

The  advocates  of  these  schemes  take  great  pleasure  in  re- 
ferring to  Oregon  as  illustrating  their  virtues.  Let  us  quote 
a  few  extracts  as  to  how  they  work  there.  We  wish  we  had 
space  to  make  them  fuller.  The  Oregonian,  a  leading  news- 
paper that  at  first  supported  these  measures,  later  says :  "They 
were  adopted  under  the  impression  that  they  were  to  be  the 
medicine  of  the  Constitution,  cautiously  administered,  when 
the  occasion  might  require;  not  as  its  daily  bread.  They  en- 
courage every  group  of  hobbyists,  every  lot  of  people  burn- 
ing with  whimsical  notions  to  propose  Initiative  measures,  or 
to  interpose  objections  through  Referendum  appeals.  They 
have  the  effect,  practically,  of  abolishing  the  Constitution  and 
laws  altogether;  or  at  least  of  keeping  people  who  would 
defend  the  stability  and  orderly  progress  of  society  always 
on  guard,  always  under  arms  for  their  defense."  In  another 
place  it  says :  "The  situation  is  a  crank's  paradise.  It  would 
not  have  been  supposed  there  would  have  been  so  many 
groups  of  persons  devoted  to  strange  and  multifarious 
crazes." 

The  testimony  of  Chas.  H.  Carey  and  Fred  V.  H.  Hoi- 
man,  prominent  attorneys  of  Portland,  the  one  in  an  address 
to  the  Bar  Association,  and  the  other  in  a  speech  in  Chicago 
in  1911,  is  to  the  same  effect  and  equally  emphatical  against 
the  policy.  Mr.  Holman  says :  "The  percentage  of  those  who 
do  not  participate  is  increasing,  lack  of  intelligent  grasp  of 
many  measures  is  clearly  indicated;  legislation  is  enacted  by 
minorities  to  the  prejudice  of  the  best  interest  of  the  majority 
and  the  Constitution  itself  is  being  changed,  with  reckless  dis- 
regard of  its  purposes  and  character."  I  regret  I  have  not 
space  to  give  further  details  of  the  general  demoralization 
produced.  The  results  here,  as  elsewhere,  are  just  what  are 
to  be  expected  from  a  logical  and  general  consideration  of  the 

[  160  ] 


question.  To  be  brief,  and  not  to  restate  the  arguments  of 
our  first  article,  we  must  repeat  that  the  effect  of  these 
measures  when  extensively  used  are,  and  will  be,  to  give 
uncertainty  and  instability  to  governmental  policies,  to  much 
impede  business  prosperity  and  to  weaken  or  destroy  the  guar- 
antees of  personal  and  property  rights.  The  larger  the  coun- 
try and  the  more  diversified  the  industries,  the  more  ruinous 
and  disastrous  the  results. 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  LIFE:  A  FRAGMENT. 

CHAPTER  I.1 

To  the  inquiring  mind  the  mystery  and  wonder  of  life 
increase  as  the  intellectual  horizon  expands.  To  the  child  or 
savage  everything  seems  as  a  matter  of  course.  Only  the 
philosopher  appreciates  how  little  he  knows,  and  how  uncer- 
tain is  even  that  little.  The  whence,  how  and  whither  of  life 
are  the  most  important  questions,  and  practically  especially 
the  "how."  All  philosophic  writers  agree  that  the  infinite 
surrounds  in  every  direction  the  finite  knowledge  that  is  at- 
tainable by  man;  but  slowly  and  gradually  the  mind  of  man 
is  approaching  nearer  the  limits,  although  surrounded  by  the 
infinite  both  in  space  and  time. 

To  do  this  successfully  it  was  necessary  that  the  very  be- 
ginnings of  knowledge  should  be  re-examined  and  the  funda- 
mental principles  as  correctly  as  possible  restated  and  system- 
atized. The  mind  of  man,  in  the  first  place,  assumed  a  great 
many  beliefs  about  physical  nature  which,  based  upon  tradi- 
tion or  ignorance,  were  radically  wrong.  The  advancing 
evolution  of  science  has  gradually  undermined  and  destroyed 
a  great  many  of  these  erroneous  ideas.  It  is  hardly  necessary 
to  name  the  successive  steps  in  this  long  educational  process 
that  is  still  going  on.  It  might  be  well  said  that  the  human 
race  appeared  upon  this  earth,  as  a  baby  appears;  and  that  its 
attainment  of  its  present  intellectual,  moral  and  civilized 
status  has  been  accomplished  by  a  process  similar  to  that  by 


1  An  unfinished  manuscript,  part  of  a  book  on  scientific  and  philosophic  lines 
at  one  time  contemplated.  In  private  conversation  Mr.  Clay  occasionally  expressed 
a  desire  to  write  a  hook,  setting  forth  his  views  on  scientific  progress:  hut  business 
cares  and  responsibilities  prevented  him  from  the  undertaking.  The  following  pi' ce 
is  preserved  in  this  book  as  giving  an  imperfect  idea  of  his  views — rir  pauca,  scarcely 
a  few — the  result  of  earnest  thought  and  careful  study  of  Spencer,  Darwin,  Haeck'-l 
and  others. 

f    163  ] 


which  the  child  attains  its  experience  and  education,  with  this 
exception,  that  the  process  was  much  longer  and  slower  in 
the  same  proportion  that  the  life  of  the  race  is  longer  than 
that  of  the  individual,  and  that  such  knowledge  as  the  indi- 
vidual receives  from  others  had  to  be  slowly  evolved  by  the 
race  for  itself,  often  accompanied  by  mistakes  and  reac- 
tions that  immeasurably  increased  the  time  required  for  its 
attainment. 

To  be  very  brief,  what  has  been  the  main  feature  of  this 
intellectual  progress?  To  our  mind  the  great  scientific 
achievement  of  the  ages  has  been  the  establishment  of  the 
idea  of  the  regularity  of  law.  It  was  first  seen  that  in  inani- 
mate nature  all  physical  phenomena  were  regulated  by  law 
and  did  not  happen  by  chance.  This  observation  was  first 
made  in  regard  to  a  few  things,  and  then  gradually  the  do- 
main of  law  was  extended  to  many  things;  until  now  the 
philosophical  mind  does  not  doubt  that  all  physical  phenome- 
na of  the  inanimate  world  are  strictly  regulated  by  unvarying 
laws.  Then  it  was,  more  slowly,  as  a  matter  of  course,  on 
account  of  the  complexity  of  the  subject  matter,  also  ascer- 
tained that  the  animate  world  was  controlled  by  and  was 
under  the  dominion  of  law.  This  last  proposition  is  not  so 
widely  accepted,  or  so  thoroughly  demonstrated  as  the  first; 
but  each  day's  experience  adds  to  its  strength,  and  the  best 
thinkers  on  this  subject  no  more  question  its  truth  than  they 
do  the  reign  of  law  in  the  inanimate  world. 

The  scientific  world  of  today  then,  to  formulate  its  main 
tenet,  believes  in  the  persistence  of  force,  or  the  regularity  of 
law.  This  general  proposition  includes  a  great  many  minor 
ones.  From  this  is  deduced  the  indestructibility  of  matter, 
the  conservation  of  all  kinds  of  force  though  converted  into 
other  forms;  as  for  instance,  the  conversion  of  motion  into 
heat,  light  or  electricity  and  reconversion  in  turn  into  either 
of  the  others.  From  the  principle  of  the  persistence  of  force, 
scientists  deduce  the  proposition  that  no  physical  phenomena 
can  take  place  in  the  inanimate  universe  without  adequate  an- 

[  164  ] 


tecedents  or  causes.    And  the  same  truth  they  infer,  with  ever 
increasing  proofs,  in  regard  to  the  animate  universe. 

Now  considered  in  the  light  of  these  conceptions,  what  of 
the  whence,  the  how  and  the  whither  of  human  life?  Let  us 
say  in  the  first  place  that  we  shall  treat  of  but  a  few  of  the 
many  important  questions  involved  in  this  all  comprehensive 
query,  and  very  briefly  at  that.  First,  we  shall  state  a  brief 
summary  of  what  we  believe  as  to  the  physical  universe.  We, 
with  all  advanced  thinkers,  believe  in  some  form  of  the  nebu- 
lar theory.  To  confine  ourselves  to  the  earth,  it  was  first,  or 
at  least  at  a  very  early  period,  a  mass  of  nebular  matter,  acted 
upon  by  the  physical  forces  now  and  then  in  existence  and 
gradually  consolidated  into  a  liquid  and  then  into  a  solid 
body.  The  particular  forms  of  force  exerted  were  gravity 
and  the  concentration  and  contraction  produced  by  cooling — 
forces  inherent  in  matter. 

During  this  process  occurred  the  long  period  within  which 
the  crust  was  slowly  formed.  Of  this  period  geology  fur- 
nishes the  history  and,  as  far  as  human  knowledge  has  at- 
tained, the  process.  It  also  gives,  from  the  record  left  by 
imbedded  fossils,  the  gradual  development  of  life  as  the 
world  progressed  towards  its  present  status.  And  here,  by 
the  way,  let  us  record  the  fact  that  little  solid  progress  was 
made  in  geology  until  Hutton  enunciated  the  great  principle 
that  the  forces  of  nature  now  at  work  were  sufficient  to  ac- 
complish every  result  seen,  and  must  be  solely  relied  upon  to 
unravel  the  mysteries  of  the  rocks  and  their  varied  phenom- 
ena. As  long  as  geologists  tried  to  explain  the  strata  by  old 
traditions  as  to  what  had  occurred,  or  by  some  irregularly 
acting  and  supernatural  forces,  they  labored  in  vain  and  their 
work  bore  no  fruit.  Just  in  proportion  as  they  confined 
themselves  to  those  forces  now  in  existence  and  ever  working, 
did  the  rocks  give  forth  and  unravel  their  history. 

The  same  truth  has  been  found  in  regard  to  all  other  fields 
of  scientific  inquiry.  In  other  words  the  more  we  study  the 
laws  of  nature,  the  more  we  find  phenomena  regulated  by 

[   165  ] 


law.  Now  how  is  it  in  regard  to  the  animate  world?  In  this 
field  we  find,  with  expanding  knowledge  of  its  facts,  the  same 
subjection  of  all  its  forms  to  the  dominion  of  law.  The  theory 
of  organic  evolution  is  now  held  true  by  nearly  all  well  in- 
formed minds  in  the  field  of  natural  history,  and  also  by  an 
ever  increasing  number  of  the  general  public.  The  thinking 
man  sees  it  exemplified  in  all  departments,  not  only  of  the 
animal  kingdom,  but  as  a  universal  law  of  all  nature.  While 
this  theory  is  not  absolutely  proved  in  all  its  implications, 
yet  each  day  adds  to  the  quantity  and  the  strength  of  the 
proof. 

As  between  the  theory  of  special  creation  and  the  theory 
of  evolution,  the  impartial  mind  cannot  hesitate  a  moment. 
For  the  theory  of  creation,  as  held  of  yore,  there  is  not  a  par- 
ticle of  scientific  evidence  of  any  trustworthy  character,  while 
in  favor  of  evolution  there  are  innumerable  proofs  that  are 
daily  being  added  to.  It  is  the  only  theory  consistent  with 
the  spirit  of  the  science  of  today.  Every  science,  as  its  range 
and  spirit  are  expanded,  strengthens  and  supports  the  theory 
of  evolution.  The  theory  of  creation,  as  heretofore  held,  is 
utterly  inconsistent  with  the  facts  of  geology,  paleontology, 
anatomy,  chemistry  and  astronomy.  That  of  evolution  com- 
pletely harmonizes  with  these  sciences.  It  explains  adequately 
the  facts  of  animal  life,  its  forms  in  the  present  and  past  and 
their  distribution  in  space  and  time.  It  explains  the  forma- 
tion of  the  earth  and  heavenly  bodies  from  their  nebular  be- 
ginnings to  their  present  conditions.  It  not  only  does  this 
but,  as  Herbert  Spencer  so  well  demonstrates  in  his  various 
philosophical  works,  it  explains  the  growth  of  society,  its  in- 
stitutions and  civilization.  In  fact,  the  best  scientific  thought 
believes  it  to  be  the  universal  law  of  the  universe.  As  against 
the  theory  of  specal  creation  it  is  impregnable. 

The  old  theory  of  special  creation  in  the  light  of  geology 
and  paleontology,  would  imply  that,  not  only  in  the  begin- 
ning the  act  of  special  creation  was  performed,  but  that  all 
through  geological  time  the  act  of  special  creation  was  per- 

[  166  ] 


formed  continuously  and  incessantly.  As  this  theory  denied 
the  derivation  of  species  from  any  other  species,  it  necessarily 
involved  that  the  millions  of  different  species  in  the  past,  each 
following  in  endless  succession,  were  specially  created  without 
antecedent  form.  This  belief  in  view  of  the  present  knowl- 
edge of  these  subjects  is  absurd.  On  the  other  hand  the 
theory  of  evolution  perfectly  explains  how  by  natural  causes 
one  species  gradually  developed  from  a  previous  one  and 
makes  an  open  book  of  the  past  life  of  the  globe  so  far  as 
geology  is  concerned. 


CHAPTER  II.    THE  REGULARITY  OF  LAW. 

Before  proceeding  farther  with  the  main  subject,  we  will 
more  fully  explain  some  of  the  consequents  of  the  principle 
of  the  persistence  of  force.  Take,  for  instance,  a  ball  and 
throw  it  with  a  certain  force;  that  ball,  if  not  opposed  by  an- 
other force,  would  travel  through  space  with  the  same  velocity 
for  all  time;  but  in  nature  there  are  probably  no  instances  of  a 
body  acted  on  by  only  one  force.  When  you  throw  the  ball 
there  is  not  only  the  force  with  which  you  throw  the  ball,  but 
also  gravity  and  the  force  created  by  the  opposition  of  the 
medium  through  which  you  propel  the  ball.  The  final  mo- 
tion of  the  ball  is  the  true  resultant  of  these  three  forces  and 
can  be  accurately  calculated  if  the  exact  measure  of  these 
three  forces  is  known.  The  same  is  true  in  regard  to  all 
other  motions  of  all  bodies  earthly  or  heavenly.  Again, 
when  the  ball  is  thrown  against  a  stationary  and  immovable 
object,  what  becomes  of  the  propelling  force?  In  this  case 
motion  is  mainly  converted  into  molecular  motion,  which  pro- 
duces motion  that  is  invisible  in  the  form  of  heat  waves.  If 
these  heat  waves  could  all  be  collected,  along  with  such  other 
movements  as  were  started  by  the  shock  of  the  contact,  they 
would  make  the  same  amount  of  force  in  the  form  of  motion 
as  the  ball  possessed  in  the  first  place. 

[   167  ] 


This  last  illustration  brings  up  the  corollary  of  the  con- 
servation of  force.  This  principle  asserts  that  force  in  the 
form  of  motion  can  be  changed,  without  loss,  into  other  forms 
of  force;  namely,  light,  heat,  electricity  or  molecular  motion, 
or  conversely  in  regard  to  either  of  these.  The  principle  of 
the  persistency  of  force  guarantees  that  no  form  of  matter 
nor  of  force  is  ever  lost,  or  can  be  lost;  and,  where  seemingly 
it  is  so,  there  is  only  a  conversion  in  the  form  of  the  matter 
or  of  the  force  which  occasions  the  deception;  and,  if  by  care- 
ful experiment  such  apparent  destruction  of  either  force  or 
matter  is  accurately  analyzed,  it  is  found  simply  a  conversion 
into  some  other  form  of  matter  or  of  force,  which,  when 
properly  measured,  shows  no  loss  of  either. 

As  a  consequence  of  this  persistence  of  force  and  matter, 
comes  the  regularity  of  the  material  world.  Were  not  mat- 
ter and  force  persistent,  no  calculation  could  be  made  as  to 
the  future.  The  science  of  astronomy  could  not  exist.  No 
calculation  in  relation  to  the  planetary  bodies,  and  especially 
as  to  the  comets,  would  be  reliable.  The  world  would  be  con- 
tinually changing  its  orbit,  and  the  regularity  of  the  seasons 
would  disappear.  The  heat  of  the  sun  received  by  the  earth 
would  be  inconstant,  and  soon  from  this  course  alone  all  life 
on  the  globe  would  become  extinct.  Again,  were  any  matter 
ever  to  be  destroyed,  the  earth  and  all  heavenly  bodies  would 
continually  vary  in  weight  and  size,  and  all  regularity  of  their 
motion,  caused  by  gravity,  would  cease  and  universal  chaos 
would  come. 

Also  in  regard  to  the  ordinary  events  of  life  the  same  ir- 
regularity and  uncertainty  would  prevail.  So  without  going 
into  detail,  the  present  status  of  the  world,  its  matter  and  its 
animal  life,  would  be  utterly  impossible,  were  it  not  for  the 
persistence  of  force,  or  in  other  words,  the  unvarying  regu- 
larity of  law. 

By  the  unvarying  regularity  of  law,  we  must  not  be  un- 
derstood as  meaning  any  regularity  of  results,  for  the  least 
difference  in  the  forces  or  in  the  combination  of  the  forces 

[  168  ] 


must  necessarily  cause  a  variation  in  the  results;  but  we  do 
mean  by  it  that  nothing  occurs,  so  far  as  we  have  investi- 
gated, in  the  earth  or  in  the  universe  without  adequate  causes 
or  antecedents.  More  and  more  of  the  mysteries  of  nature 
are  yearly  unravelled  to  the  extent  of  being  found  to  be  under 
the  dominion  of  law;  and  the  scientific  mind  of  today  believes 
in  such  regularity  in  regard  to  far  off  or  occult  phenomena, 
which  have  not  yet  been  thoroughly  investigated  or  under- 
stood. 


CHAPTER  III.    DARWINIAN  THEORY. 

In  the  previous  chapter  we  have  spoken  of  the  regularity 
of  law  in  a  general  way,  but  more  especially  pertaining  to 
the  material  universe.  We  shall  now  investigate  whether 
the  same  regularity  of  law  pertains  to  the  animal  world. 

In  the  study  of  life  there  are  two  fields,  the  forms  now 
existing  and  the  forms  of  the  past  as  shown  by  the  fossil  re- 
mains in  strata  and  rocks  of  former  ages.  For  a  long  time 
in  the  history  of  the  world  all  forms  of  life  were  considered 
as  specially  created  without  antecedent  forms.  It  was  only 
as  the  science  of  geology  developed,  that  such  theory  was  seen 
to  be  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  evidence  of  the  rocks  as 
presented  by  their  fossil  forms.  For  a  long  time  these  fossils 
were  supposed  to  be  freaks  of  nature,  and  not  the  remains  of 
animals  that  had  actually  existed.  But  more  extended  inves- 
tigation and  more  complete  knowledge  proved  beyond  doubt 
that  these  fossil  forms  represented  animals  that  had  actually 
existed  in  the  past. 

So  any  theory  of  creation  or  life  had  not  only  to  account 
for  life  as  it  now  exists,  but  for  the  myriad  of  fossil  forms 
that  had  existed  in  the  past.  By  investigation  it  was  seen  that 
in  the  lower  rocks,  which  were  formed  millions  of  years  ago, 
only  the  lower  forms  of  life  appeared,  and  with  the  ascent  in 
the  rocks,  the  fossil  forms  gradually  assumed  a  higher  devel- 

[  169  ] 


opment  and  the  highest  form  of  animal  life  only  appeared  in 
the  comparatively  recent  strata  or  formations. 

It  was  also  found  that  there  was  a  wonderful  differentia- 
tion of  varied  forms,  and  that  one  type  gradually  approximat- 
ed to  another  type,  and  that  thus  there  appeared  more  or  less 
perfectly  connecting  links  between  the  various  forms  of  life. 
I  say  more  or  less  perfectly;  for  it  must  be  recollected  that 
the  conditions  under  which  fossil  forms,  especially  of  the 
higher  animals,  are  preserved  are  largely  exceptional,  and  the 
vast  majority  of  remains  of  animals  are  in  course  of  nature 
destroyed  without  leaving  any  vestige  or  trace.  In  fact,  the 
wonder  is  that  so  many,  and  not  so  few,  individual  fossils 
have  been  preserved.  No  doubt  many  species  and  genera 
have  left  no  fossil  forms. 

To  account  for  the  facts  of  life  in  a  natural  way  as  pre- 
sented in  both  its  history  and  fossil  forms  ( for  a  thinker  cer- 
tainly must  exhaust  the  natural  before  he  calls  in  the  super- 
natural), Darwin  enunciated  his  theory  of  evolution.  He 
elaborately  does  this  in  his  "Origin  of  Species"  and  in  his 
"Descent  of  Man."  Most  of  his  other  works  were  written 
to  strengthen  and  enforce  this  theory.  Various  other  great 
minds  are  entitled  to  their  share  in  the  development  and  forti- 
fying of  this  explanation  of  life,  Wallace,  H.  Spencer,  Haeck- 
el,  Huxley,  Tyndall  and  others.  Spencer  and  others  extend 
the  theory  universally. 

No  one  who  has  not  read  Darwin's  works  can  form  any 
conception  of  the  infinite  care  and  pains  he  took  in  the  obser- 
vations and  experiments  he  made  to  develop  impartially  the 
truths  of  animal  life.  Briefly  stated,  the  theory  is,  that  in 
regard  to  animal  life,  it  has  been  slowly  and  gradually  devel- 
oped through  countless  ages  from  the  lowest  forms  to  its 
present  high  status  in  man  and  the  higher  animals  through  a 
gradual  differentiation. 

Darwin  accounts  for  this  variation  in  the  main — although 
there  are  other  forces  also  allowed  their  part  in  the  result- 
by  the  principle  of  natural  selection,  or  as  popularly  denomi- 

[  170  ] 


nated,  the  "survival  of  the  fittest."  Any  one  who  has  read 
Malthus  understands  what  we  mean  by  the  struggle  for  ex- 
istence. All  plants  and  animals  if  unopposed  in  any  way, 
would  increase  beyond  the  capacity  of  the  world  to  furnish 
them  room  and  sustenance.-  Take  the  illustration  of  Huxley 
of  a  plant  that  produces  50  seeds  a  year  (and  this  is  a  very 
small  number  for  a  plant),  and  if  there  was  no  obstruction,  if 
conditions  were  always  favorable,  if  each  seed  made  a  plant, 
and  if  these  plants  could  be  equally  distributed  over  the  earth, 
and  assuming  that  each  plant  occupies  a  square  foot  of 
ground,  in  nine  years  these  plants  would  occupy  the  whole 
surface  of  the  earth.  Now  apply  the  same  calculation  to 
living  creatures,  and  you  arrive  at  as  amazing  results. 

From  all  this  arises  conflict  between  plants  and  plants, 
animals  and  animals,  and,  indirectly,  animals  and  plants,  for 
space,  food,  etc.  Those  survive  in  such  contest  as  prove  fit- 
test to  bear  the  varied  competition  from  all  antagonistic 
sources.  We  are  not  going  into  details,  but  briefly  sketching 
some  of  the  salient  points  of  the  grand  law  of  evolution.  In 
regard  to  any  particular  species,  genus  or  family,  those  of 
such  species,  genus  or  family  will  tend  to  survive,  which  are 
best  fitted  for  the  habitat  and  environment.  In  other  words, 
beneficial  differentiation  in  individuals  will  tend  to  be  perpetu- 
ated at  the  expense  of  those  individuals  who  have  not  such 
beneficial  variation.  In  course  of  time  the  gradual  accumula- 
tion of  such  beneficial  variations  amounts  to  an  immense 
change  in  the  original  type  of  the  species. 

The  best  illustration  of  animal  evolution  is  the  tree.  The 
ends  of  the  various  branches  represent  existing  individuals. 
The  smallest  group  of  twigs  represents  species.  Larger 
groups  represent  genera,  and  so  on  until  we  arrive  at  the 
source  of  all  these  ramifications  in  the  main  trunk.  Now  let 


1  As    Milton    expresses   the    thought: 

"Who  would  be  quite  surcharged   with   her  own   weigh 
And    strangled    with    her    waste    fertility; 

Th'   earth   cumhcr'd,   and   the   wing'd   air   dark'd    with   plumes, 
The    herds   would    over-multitude    their    lords, 
The    sea   o'erfraught    would    swell,     .     .     .     ." 

Comus,   lines    727-31. 


[    171    ] 


us  examine  this  illustration,  which  has  been  used  by  several 
writers,  a  little  more  closely.  The  analogy  becomes  closer 
and  better  as  we  more  closely  study  it.  It  explains  to  a  great 
extent  the  philosophy  of  animal  and  vegetable  evolution. 
Just  think  of  the  infinite  number  of  buds,  embryo  twigs,  and 
branches  that  have  appeared  on  that  tree  in  the  past,  and 
how  few  comparatively  survive  in  the  shape  of  existing 
twigs  and  branches.  How  when  two  or  more  branches  or 
twigs  grow  too  closely  together,  one  or  even  all  may  decay 
and  fall  off,  there  not  being  enough  light,  air  and  moisture 
for  all.  How  some  limbs  survive  by  shooting  towards  light 
and  moisture,  and  others  only  live  by  drooping  to  occupy  some 
empty  space,  all  available  space  above  being  occupied  by 
larger  and  stronger  branches.  Then  think  how  in  the  course 
of  time  even  large  limbs,  being  overshadowed  by  still  larger 
or  more  healthy  limbs,  have  gradually  decayed  and  fallen  off, 
so  that  the  old  tree,  as  it  now  stands,  represents  but  few  of  the 
various  branches  that  have  existed  on  it  in  the  past.  The 
main  branches  that  now  exist,  do  so  by  virtue  cf  having  had 
some  advantage  over  those  that  have  decayed  and  fallen  off. 
Notice  that  the  thicker  the  forest  is,  the  fewer  are  the  limbs 
and  the  longer  is  the  trunk  of  the  tree. 

The  question  now  naturally  arises,  how  does  life  begin? 
All  evolutionists,  assuming  the  existence  of  life,  more  or  less 
agree  as  to  the  processes  that  then  take  place.  They  differ, 
or  at  least  some  do  not  commit  themselves,  as  to  how  life 
begins.  Darwin  assumes  certain  forms  of  life  and  shows 
how  other  and  higher  forms  arise;  but  he  does  not  touch  on 
the  beginning  of  life.  Haeckel  thinks  that  evolution,  to  be 
scientific  and  logical,  points  to  spontaneous  generation  of  the 
simplest  forms  of  life;  and  that  the  whole  plan  of  animal  life 
is  effectuated  by  general  law  without  any  special  creation  of 
any  particular  form;  or  in  other  words,  that  life  results  from 
the  potency  of  matter  and  that  evolution  and  all  other  phe- 
nomena take  place  under  natural  law.  The  question  of  spon- 
taneous generation  is  a  difficult  and  complicated  one  and  is 

[  172  ] 


purely  in  the  hypothetical  state,  and  we  shall  not  consider  it 
necessary  to  our  present  purpose  to  discuss  it. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

The  scientific  world,  then,  believes  in  the  persistence  of 
force  or  the  conservation  of  forces,  in  the  regularity  of  nat- 
ural law,  and  as  to  animal  life,  in  the  theory  of  evolution. 
Spencer  makes  evolution  the  one  universal  law  of  the  uni- 
verse. He  knows  the  following  facts :  He  lives  in  a  great 
world  which  is  a  shortened  sphere,  8,000  miles  in  diameter. 
This  sphere  alone  with  the  other  planets  is  a  satellite  of  our 
sun,  making  a  yearly  revolution  about  that  great  luminary. 
It  also  rotates  on  its  axis  in  twenty-four  hours.  Some  of  the 
other  planets  are  much  larger.  In  addition  to  our  solar  sys- 
tem there  are  innumerable  suns,  no  doubt  attended  by  their 
systems  of  planets,  distributed  throughout  space.  He  knows 
by  the  spectrum  that  the  constituents  of  the  other  heavenly 
bodies  are  constituted  of  pretty  much  the  same  elementary 
substances  as  our  own.  *  *  *  * 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  ALLEGIANCE  THAT  A 

MAN  OWES  AND  SHOULD  OWE  HIS  PARTY 

TO  SUPPORT  ITS  NOMINEES. 

From  the  Lexington  Herald,  August  18,  1912. 

This  is  a  question  of  great  interest  and  importance,  and, 
so  far  as  we  have  noticed,  has  been  but  little  discussed  in  the 
United  States,  and  not  at  all  in  Kentucky.  We  all  acknowl- 
edge that  political  parties  are  necessary  in  order  for  men 
holding  in  general  like  opinions,  to  have  concert  of  action, 
and  thus  accomplish  results  reasonable  and  commensurate 
with  their  numbers  and  characters.  The  end  in  view  always 
is  good  and  wise  government.  We  use  parties  as  means  to 
this  end.  Without  party  concert,  individuals  like  an  unor- 
ganized army  could  effect  little  or  nothing.  The  question  now 
comes  up,  when  should  a  man  be  justified  in  not  supporting 
his  party's  nominees  and  what  are  the  measures  and  limita- 
tions of  his  party  allegiance.  Let  us  for  a  moment  consider 
the  nature  of  a  party's  principles  or  opinions.  In  this  age  of 
rapidly  developing  civilization,  political  parties  must  keep 
abreast  of  these  new  evolving  conditions,  and  in  the  great 
mental  activity  of  the  age,  new  policies  and  variation  of  poli- 
cies are  proposed  with  increasing  frequency;  so  that  parties 
which  have  not  changed  their  names  or  organization  for 
many  years  may  represent  at  any  time,  in  whole  or  in  part, 
entirely  different  policies  from  what  they  held  at  some  pre- 
vious time,  and  this  evolution  of  change  continually  goes  on. 

A  man,  as  an  intelligent,  morally  responsible  and  patriotic 
agent  (all  of  which  he  should  certainly  be),  cannot  as  such 

[  175  ] 


agent  do  or  aid  in  doing  anything  that  will,  in  his  best  judg- 
ment, injure  his  country  or  people.  In  other  words,  he  can- 
not delegate  his  moral  responsibility  to  his  party  or  to  any- 
body else,  or  he  thereby  violates  the  highest  law  of  all — 
the  law  of  his  conscience.  All  parties  should  recognize  this 
higher  law  of  moral  responsibility  to  self  and  country.  They 
should  also  recognize  the  fact  that  very  often  the  policies 
proposed  in  platform  are  temporary  and  tentative.  What 
then  should  be  the  nature  of  the  obligation  to  support  nomi- 
nees? We  unhesitatingly  say  that  a  man  should  weigh  the 
issues,  at  the  time  involved,  and  the  character  of  the  nominee, 
and  to  the  best  of  his  ability  decide  as  to  whether  such  sup- 
port best  serves  his  county,  state  or  country,  and  vote  ac- 
cordingly, giving  the  benefit  of  doubts,  if  he  has  any,  to  his 
party. 

This  is  the  only  obligation  that  a  party  nomination  should 
have — to  have  more  would  be  immoral  and  injurious.  Some 
will  say  this  will  demoralize  and  break  up  the  party.  We 
deny  it.  Nothing  so  well  disciplines  a  party  as  the  necessity 
of  appealing  to  the  enlightened  judgment  and  morality  of 
its  members  in  its  nominations  and  platform.  The  fact  that 
a  man  allies  himself  with  a  party  shows  that  his  general  incli- 
nation is  to  support  its  policies  and  nominees,  and  to  give 
such  support  in  particular  instances  any  further  than  judgment 
and  conscience  permits  would  be  wrong  and  vicious  both  to 
himself,  country  and  party.  The  men  who  exercise  such  free- 
dom of  judgment  should  be  encouraged  to  remain  in  the  party 
wherein  they  generally  vote,  as  the  leaven  of  reform  should 
be  kept  \vithin  and  not  thrown  out.  No  more  useful  mem- 
bers of  a  party  could  be  desired.  What  a  party  needs  is  not 
slaves,  but  intelligent  and  moral  activities  within  for  its  bet- 
terment and  welfare. 

It  will  be  objected  that,  if  a  person  does  not  like  the  char- 
acter and  principles  of  a  candidate  who  seems  likely  to  be 
nominated,  he  should  keep  out  of  the  convention  or  primary. 
This  would  be  injurious  and  impolitic,  as  it  would  debar  all 

[  176  ] 


those  to  whom  a  candidate  is  seriously  objectionable  from 
the  polls,  and  result  in  the  more  certain  nomination  of  such 
candidate,  and  thus  injure  the  party. 

Finally,  to  summarize  the  argument — a  political  party  is 
only  the  means  to  an  end.  The  end  is  good  and  wise  govern- 
ment. Concert  through  party  action  is  a  necessity  to  effect 
reasonable  and  commensurate  results.  A  man  cannot  abso- 
lutely delegate  the  exercise  of  his  moral  responsibility  or  his 
patriotism  to  any  one  else,  or  even  to  any  political  party. 
Therefore,  a  wise  compromise  would  be  for  the  voter  in  good 
faith  to  support  nominees  when  conscience  and  patriotism  do 
not  forbid,  and  for  the  party  to  freely  grant  such  discretion 
without  ostracism  or  depreciation  of  standing  to  the  voter. 
When  a  voter's  opinions,  for  any  length  of  time,  become  in 
general  antagonistic  to  those  of  his  party,  he  should  change 
his  party.  This  rule  of  freedom  and  not  of  slavery  should 
prevail.  It  would  greatly  strengthen  a  party  to  have  this  idea 
of  allegiance  generally  recognized.  It  would  be  the  worst  of 
folly  to  ostracise  and  depreciate  those  generally  intelligent 
and  moral  persons  who  so  observe  and  respect  their  conscien- 
tious scruples.  The  above  rule  would  hold  in  its  exercise 
the  very  best  discipline  that  a  party  could  experience,  and  one 
that  it  now  lamentably  needs. 

There  should  always  be  a  necessity  for  making  good  nomi- 
nations and  enunciating  wise  policies,  and  this  is  almost  im- 
possible under  the  old  idea  of  party  allegiance  in  districts 
where  the  majority  is  large.  We  insist  that  good  govern- 
ment and  the  welfare  of  the  country  are  the  end,  and  party 
only  the  means  to  such  end. 

The  time  will  come  when  the  fact  that  a  man  has  always 
supported  his  party's  nominees  will  be  considered  more  or  less 
a  mark  of  mental  weakness  and  moral  cowardice,  for  to  have 
long  done  so  in  the  swiftly  evolving  issues  of  modern  politics 
is  to  imply  a  degree  of  mental  lethargy  and  moral  apathy  that 
are  necessarily  wanting  in  the  intellectually  equipped  and  cour- 
ageously moral  man.  What  thinking  man  would  not  trust  as 

[  177  ] 


a  bulwark  against  corruption  and  wrong  a  man  who  has  the 
courage  of  his  conviction  rather  than  a  slavish  time-server? 

Already  you  can  measure  the  volume  of  independent 
voting  in  a  community  by  the  amount  of  its  intelligence  and 
morality.  Where  schools  and  colleges  abound ;  where  books, 
magazines  and  first-class  newspapers  are  extensively  read,  the 
independent  voter  is  a  power.  On  the  contrary,  where  all  the 
above  are  comparatively  absent,  they  vote  the  straight  ticket 
without  regard  to  consequences.  The  leaders  of  the  coming 
politically  better  times  will  be  men  who  will  have  the  intellect 
and  courage  to  stand  for  the  higher  ideals  of  government, 
and  who  will  not  be  slavishly  bound  by  the  lower  standards 
of  party  despotism  and  short-sighted  expediency.  It  has  been 
on  account  of  the  old  idea  of  party  allegiance  that  corrupt 
rings  and  cliques  have  flourished  at  various  times  in  our  cities 
and  states,  and  it  has  only  been  by  the  violation  of  such  rule 
by  the  better  class  of  party  voters  that  such  rings  and  cliques 
have  been  broken  up. 

We  conclude:  We  should  have  parties  as  a  necessity  in 
the  government  of  a  free  people,  but  their  rule  should  be  one 
of  freedom  and  not  of  despotism.  The  authority  of  their  ac- 
tions in  regard  to  nominees  and  policies  should  be  considered 
moral  and  advisory  and  not  despotic  and  obligatory.  They 
should  keep  within  themselves  the  leaven  of  reform  and  bet- 
terment by  not  excluding  from  good  fellowship  and  equal 
consideration  those  who  may  conscientiously  object  to  some 
of  their  actions,  but  who,  in  the  main,  approve;  for  they  are 
generally  the  thinkers  and  men  of  ability,  and  those  not  slav- 
ishly seeking  personal  preferment. 

We  can  already  see  the  gradual  evolution  of  the  reform 
in  sentiment  that  we  advocate.  In  fact,  it  is  already  here. 
As  a  matter  of  course,  the  election  laws  should  recognize,  as 
now,  the  full  authority  of  party  nominations,  but  any  law 
that  practically  prevents  fusion  nominations  should  be 
changed  so  as  to  allow  the  largest  liberty  to  the  voters  in  the 
selection  of  their  officials. 

[  178  ] 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

305  De  Neve  Drive  -  Parking  Lot  17  •  Box  951388 

LOS  ANGELES,  CALIFORNIA  90095-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library  from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


172006 


. 

OF  CALIFO*1«* 
LOS  ANGELES 


